Too little too late

The official confirmation for the Church of Scotland that the majority of their presbyteries have backed legislation which will allow the appointment of ministers in a same-sex relationship comes as no surprise. The legislation also makes clear that being in a same-sex relationship is no bar to becoming a candidate for the ministry. While the presbytery head-count of 54.6% to 45.4% may seem rather close, the final affirmation required by the 2015 General Assembly will be far more decisive. Assemblies tend to be more liberal than the church membership at large. We can also expect moves that will allow same-sex weddings in parish churches.

While radicals in the Kirk will be celebrating, what of the evangelicals? I was never one of those who predicted a mass exodus of congregations. Of those who left the Church of Scotland, only a handful have done so en mass. Most such congregations have split. By and large, there have been handfuls of members leaving on their own, disillusioned by the lack of fortitude shown by their minister. Anyone who imagines that a minister leaving the Church of Scotland is taking the easy option needs to think again. As well as losing their home and a job from which they could not be sacked (unless for some gross misdemeanour), there is a massive reduction in salary no matter what other denomination they go to. Those who have demitted their charges have acted with great faith and courage. Those who remain complain that we have left them to continue the fight. Our reply is, What fight? There was no fight to speak of. Rather there was only compromise.

And yet, what if there had been a fight? What if evangelicals had been better organised, more willing to raise the stakes if the radicals got their way? The closeness of the headcount at presbytery level suggests that Albert Bogle’s compromise might not have been necessary. If the Biblical principle for sexual union as being exclusively between one man and one woman had been as well argued throughout presbyteries and congregations as it was on the floor of the Assembly in 2014 there might have been a ground-swell against the radicals. We will never know.

Andrew McGowan has formed the Covenant Fellowship which allows church members to register their dis-satisfaction at the Kirk’s trajectory. Sadly this is fifty years too late. The fact that acting principal clerk George Whyte has welcomed the formation of this new group speaks volumes. They can angrily jump up and down like Rumpelstiltskin but they have surrendered their trump card—that they will never leave the Kirk; and that’s all 121 George Street cares about.

TALKING GOD #2

DOES GOD EXIST?

Question: How do we even know that there is a God? 

Probably the most important question in human philosophy is: Does God exist?  It’s an important question because the answer will affect the whole of human life.  Is mankind the supreme being; or is there a Being superior even to us who is to be loved and obeyed, and indeed, worshipped? 

Throughout history human beings have grappled with this question and tried to find the answer through logic.  Let me put to you three so-called proofs for the existence of God. 

One approach basically says that the very fact that we can conceive of a God must mean that a God exists.  A more sophisticated way of putting it would be this: our idea of God is that of a being which is greater than anything else.  Even atheists, when they deny the existence of God, are denying the existence of a supreme being beyond which nothing greater can be conceived.

Well, says this argument, how can you have the idea of something beyond which nothing greater can exist, if the reality behind that idea doesn’t actually exist?   Indeed, the very fact that such a reality doesn’t exist would mean that it isn’t greater than everything else.  After all, anything that doesn’t exist can’t be greater than anything that actually does exist. 

Do you find this argument persuasive? 

It’s shot full of holes.  Just because we can imagine something doesn’t mean that it has to exist.  We can imagine fairies and unicorns and mermaids. 

Yet—might there be something more to it than at first sight.  We might not believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden; but as Christians we do believe in the spirit-world.  Unicorns and mermaids have a basis in fact, in that they are inaccurate descriptions of real animals—the rhinoceros, and the porpoise. 

We have to acknowledge that belief in God or in several gods is universal.  Every tribe, every culture, has or has had a concept of the divine.  Why?  Where has the idea come from? 

Another argument is based on cause and effect.  We know that everything has a cause.  Nothing happens without something causing it to happen.  So how did the universe happen?  Why is there anything and not nothing? There must be a First Mover.    There must be an Eternal Something. 

Perhaps the universe itself is self-existent, self-creating: the universe has always been there.  The problem with this theory is that the universe doesn’t act as if it is self-existent.  The universe is cooling down, like an oven that has been turned off.  It doesn’t keep itself going.  It is, in fact, decaying, like an apple or banana left in your fruit bowl.  The universe looks as if it has had a beginning; but instead of maintaining itself, it is clearly heading towards an end.  So who started it?

A more modern version of this argument is the one called Intelligent Design, which Dr. Alistair Donald spoke to us about during our Mission.  The irrefutable fact is that the universe seems to be designed.  Everything about our planet appears to be designed to support life—the Goldilocks Effect. 

It is just the right size; it rotates at just the right speed; its distance from the sun is spot on; it tilts at just the right angle; the land-water ratio is just perfect.  Too much heat, too much cold and there can’t be life.  We need light, but not too much ultra-violet.  We live just beneath an air screen shielding us from millions of extra-terrestrial missiles every day.  We live just 10 miles above a rock screen that shields us from the ferocious heat at the earth’s core.

Who created all these screens and shields that make life on earth possible? 

The choice is that either the universe developed all these features by chance, or that it was designed.  Either the universe has been planned or it’s an accident. 

And may I suggest that chance really is not an explanation; rather it’s the refusal to give an explanation.  When scientists explain things they operate on the assumption that this is a regular universe where everything occurs as a result of the orderly procession of cause and effect.

Yet, if they are evolutionists explaining the origins of the universe, they abandon the principle of sufficient reason and assume that the cause of everything is an unthinkable causelessness, chance or fate. 

A third attempt to prove the existence of God by logic relates to our sense of right and wrong.  Where do we get our sense of morality from?  Is it just from society?  But if that is the case, why is it that some of the greatest moralists in history have been those who have challenged their society, criticising the moral failings of their contemporaries? 

If there is no ultimate arbiter of good and bad, right and wrong, then morality becomes subjective.  Who is to say that within a given context slavery is wrong, or racism, or genocide?  Might is right. 

There must be a God to whom we are accountable; who, because we are accountable to him, has given us this universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.

None of these so-called proofs are a clincher.  If they were then there would be no atheists.  Some theologians dismiss them out of hand as completely useless.  I think that’s a bit hard.  Perhaps we can call them pointers rather than proofs.  They suggest the existence of God.  But I would never rely on them totally. 

From its opening sentence the Bible presupposes the existence of God. 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  (Gen.1:1)

For us the existence of God is the great presupposition of theology…that there is a self-existent, self-conscious, personal Being which is the origin of all things, and which transcends the entire creation, but is at the same time immanent in every part of it…The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith.  But this faith is not blind faith but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God and secondarily in God’s revelation in nature. (Louis Berkof)

The Bible tells us that we should be able to work out the existence of God from nature.  Ps.19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands.  Day after day they pour forth speech, night after night they display knowledge.

Acts 14:17 Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.  (Paul to the people of Lystra) 

Calvin: men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him. 

Ties in with Intelligent Design.  Everything that exists gives evidence of God’s existence.  More than this, the Bible also tells us that every human being has a deep, inner sense that God exists.  This is not to say that we have within us a full understanding of God’s nature.  But it does explain why peoples all over the world have a sense of the divine.  Thus, if we deny the existence of God it is because we are actively and deliberately suppressing something we know to be true. 

Rom.1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.   

Paul is saying there that from creation we should be able to conclude that there is a God, one whom no-one can be greater (eternal power and divine nature).   The fact that human beings have worshipped that which is created—the sun, the stars, animals, themselves—demonstrates how perverted our notions of the divine are—worshipping things which are inferior to ourselves.  But there is within the human soul the need to worship something. 

It’s only when we turn to the Bible that our ideas of God are clarified.  Calvin illustrates this beautifully: Just as old or bleary-eyed men and those with weak vision, if you thrust before them a most beautiful volume, even if they recognize it to be some sort of writing, yet can scarcely construe two words, but with the aid of spectacles will begin to read distinctly; so scripture, gathering up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God.  (Institutes I.vi.1)

Creation can tells us that God exists.  It can tell us that he is the creator, that he is imaginative, that he is powerful and majestic.  We can even discern God’s love and grace from creation.  But not always.  We might equally conclude that God is cruel and capricious. 

Only from scripture do we learn that God is holy.  Only from scripture do we learn that we are sinners in need of a Saviour; and that God loves us so much that he sent such a Saviour into the world.  If we are going to know God we need the Bible. 

Let me make just say one more thing about how we know God.  The contemporary theologian, Douglas Kelly, makes the extremely important point that whatever truth we need to know about God, indeed, anything about our faith, can only be learned within the community of the church. 

Scripture teaches throughout that God, who is truth, makes himself known to mankind by means of both Word and personal communion within a covenant context.  God speaks his Word to his image-bearers, not in a vacuum, but within a personal relationship.  And this personal relationship in which God’s speaking occurs is always in the bounds of a covenant community.   (Systematic Theology p.16,17)

We learn together.  And when, as the church, we talk about learning together, we don’t just limit ourselves to those who are physically present.  We listen to the saints who have gone before us.  We listen to our brothers and sisters throughout the world.  To exclude their voices would nothing but the utmost arrogance. 

As the hymn puts it

We need each other’s view’s to see the limits of our mind

That God in fact turns out to be far more than we’ve defined

 TRANSCENDENCE AND IMMANENCE 

I want to draw this first talk to an end by introducing you to two important concepts which are foundational in any discussion about God.  The first says that God is transcendent; the second says that God is immanent.  The reason why it is important for us to grasp these concepts is that in many other religions these concepts are held to be contradictory.  God cannot be both transcendent and immanent.  The Bible, however, teaches that the True God is both.

To say that God is transcendent means that God is distinct and separate from the created order.  God is not part and parcel of creation.  Thus God is unique.  There is God; and there is creation. 

This means that the New Age idea of God being everything and everything being God is quite wrong.  It’s one thing to say that we see God in everything, meaning that we see God’s handiwork in creation.  It’s quite another thing to refer to nature as divine.  The technical term for that is “pantheism”—everything is God, everything is an extension of God.  Listen out for this philosophy in some of the song of Disney movies like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas”. 

God is transcendent—he is over and above, he is distinct from creation.

To say that God is immanent means that is present within his creation. Deists are those who believe that God exists and that he is transcendent; but that he has nothing to do with his creation.  It’s as if the creation is a wind-up toy car.  God has wound the key, and then let the toy car go wherever it goes.  He has nothing more to do with it.  If there are bumps and crashes along the way that’s nothing to do with him.  But that’s not Biblical. 

The Bible tells us that God is intimately involved in creation.  One of the names of Jesus emphasises this: Immanuel, God with us. There’s a wonderful verse in Isaiah that marries the transcendence and the immanence of God.  Isa.57:15: For this is what the high and loft One says—he who lives for ever, whose name is holy; I live in a high and holy place [transcendence] but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the contrite [immanence]. 

That’s a good place to finish—the True and Living God, is the Talking God; the God who though he is above and beyond us, the high and lofty One, is the God who Immanuel; beyond us, yes; but also beside us and within us.

Weekend in Broughty Ferry

It’s been a long time since I have benefitted from turning the clocks back personally, but this morning, at 7am, I was able to walk the dogs in day-light.  I haven’t been able to do that for a couple of weeks and had been forced away from our usual out-towards- the-county route for lack of street lighting.  The dogs also seem to have enjoyed the freedom of being let off the lead.

I note in the press that some are calling for Scotland to have its own time zone (“tundra time” it’s being called) since our neighbours in the south don’t get the same benefit from the change in time.  It would be mad for Scottish clocks be showing a different time from the rest of the country.  But could we not just run our day an hour behind everyone else?  Could our schools and offices not start at 10am instead of 9am, and go until 4pm instead of 3pm?  Our bodies adjust to the reality of a time-change; instead of changing the hour why not change the structure of the day? 

I had a really good weekend at Broughty Ferry.  This was the weekend of the Dundee Presbytery Preaching Conference, primarily for Readers.  I was speaking on Preaching the Cross and Preaching the Empty Tomb.  I was very impressed by the attendance (about 30) and by their enthusiasm, listening to five talks between 9am and 4pm. 

It was particularly good to see some folks I hadn’t seen for a while.  One was Craig Kirkwood.  We were on CU exec together back when we were at Strathclyde.  He was Book Sec when I was International Sec.  Craig went on to be President. 

Another familiar face was Harry McLennan.  Harry is Session Clerk at Portmoak Church where I did my first attachment as a student for the ministry, under Robin Stewart.  Harry’s daughter and son-in-law are the Ferguson’s in Japan who do the Church planter’s blog.  You’ll see the Ferguson File to the right of my blog. 

I’m not putting the talks on the blog since they are far too long.  I’ll just say one thing.   A point I made in both talks is that as preachers we must never forget that the crucifixion and the resurrection were both historical events.  If Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” alerted the Church to anything it’s that modern people have no idea just how horrific a death crucifixion was.  2000 years of church history have sanitised the cross for us. 

So I was arguing that it’s important to take our listeners to Calvary.  Let them hear the nails being hammered through the wrists; let them feel the six-inch thorns piercing the brow; let them taste the blood trickling down the cheeks and into the mouth; let them smell the foul mixture of faeces, urine and vomit.  Remind them that something real happened. 

The same goes for the empty tomb.  The Bible presents the resurrection as a fact, not a parable, still less a myth.  We need to scurry with the women through the quiet Jerusalem streets; we need to see the stone rolled away.  Let us peer over Peter’s shoulders as he stares at the neatly folded grave-clothes.  Similarly, let us walk a step or two behind the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, so that we can overhear what that stranger is saying to them. 

Take us there, not in an attempt to pad out a colourless story, but to help our listeners realize that something really happened on that first day of the week, that first Easter morn.

On behalf of One Kirk

Yesterday, while I was cooking dinner (pasta carbonara) I received a phone call from a member of the One Kirk steering group.  He was upset about my statement on yesterday’s blog about “the Scott Rennie camp” speaking to another denomination.  He categorically denied any knowledge of this.  I am happy to acknowledge that this married man with children knew nothing of the discussions referred to.  However, I stand by what I said.  I only mentioned these discussions because it’s always the evangelicals who are accused of threatening to leave, when in fact others are doing the same.  Before the Assembly there was a post on the Affirmation Scotland site stating quite openly that Scott Rennie was actively contemplating ministry in the USA should the decision go against him.  That’s quite understandable; as are discussions with another British denomination.  But this has never been reported in the press.

Another year, another Holiday Club

Holiday Club is over for another year.  Thank you to every who has been praying for us.  It’s been a great week with as many kids coming as we could cope with.  I’ve been doing holiday clubs for years and I have to say this has been one of the best.  It takes over your life and you go around singing the theme song and doing the actions involuntary.  There were 10 scary minutes on Tuesday when the lap-top refused to read the DVD.  We think there was a tiny scratch on the disc and it the lap-top was being a bit fussy.  This was one of those moments when the manse being next to the church was a life-saved because I was able to get our, less fussy, lap-top, and our magnificent technical team managed to transfer everything in the nick of time.  I wonder if magic lanterns caused so much trouble.  It’s a wonderful privilege being able to bring the gospel to so many kids.  Our prayer now is that the seed that was sown will take root in their young lives. 

One of the important dividends of holiday club is that team members get to know each other better.  It brings together people who wouldn’t normally socialise and who only see each other at church on a Sunday. 

Last night we had our Thanksgiving Service.  Our usual practice is to have three of the team say something about how they feel about the week.  All of them spoke with great warmth and enthusiasm. 

One of the things we need to learn to do better is involving people, not just for one week a year, but continually.   I often say that no one should be doing two jobs until everyone is doing one, but of course it doesn’t work out like that.  There is nothing quite like doing the Lord’s work to help us grow in our faith.  Sitting in church and listening to sermons is never enough.  The point of preaching is to equip the saints for works of service (Eph.4:12).  The Church, as well as each individual, has a responsibility to make that a reality.

Showstoppers Holiday Club

Today is the start of our annual Holiday Club at Kirkmuirhill, something we have been doing for over 30 years.  We’re doing “Showstoppers”, material produced by SU, and in my opinion it’s one of the best in recent years.  Based in theatre-land, it takes the plan of salvation, from creation to redemption, via David and Daniel.  The theme song is by far the catchiest we’ve had for a long time.   The video is well produced, well acted and easy to follow—we can’t say that every year. 

As important as good material is the most important thing is a good team.  Kirkmuirhill Church excels at this, having built up an enviable body of experience over three decades.  There is a an organising committee which starts in January.  The amount of work they do is phenomenal.  Nothing is omitted, down to the last detail of scissors and coloured pens for every team. 

One change this year is that we are only holding the club in the mornings, 10am – 1pm.  In the past we had afternoon sessions too.  This was a very big commitment from team members, especially those with families of their own.  Doing it all in one concentrated session has solved that problem.   In effect, we only lose half-an-hour. 

One of the many joys of Holiday Club is seeing home-grown helpers coming through.  We have an excellent group of teenage helpers who just get better and better every year.  If they keep going as they are it bodes well for the future.  We have an evening session for them, with games and a time for sharing the gospel message. 

Please pray for us all—for patience and kindness and a winsomeness for the Lord.  It’s a great privilege to be able to share the gospel with so many children, many of whom have little or no contact with the church otherwise.

New members

Today we had one of those “all singing all dancing” type services that tend come at the end of the school year.  To begin with we had a report from the Mission and Evangelism Task Group, feeding back the information which has now been collated from the community survey we did in January.  The survey was very worthwhile from several points of view.  Primarily it has given us some very practical ideas about what kind of outreach might be most worthwhile.  From a pre-evangelism perspective we are thinking about parenting courses.  Also, we feel a need for more social events. 

Next, one of our boys from the BB was awarded his Queen’s Badge which is no small feat.  Given that the survey highlighted the [perceived] lack of youth activities in the village, we believe that what we offer through the BB and GB is very valuable.  About 100 children and youth are involved. 

The highlight of the service was admitting to membership three people by profession of faith and two who are transferring from other congregations.  The fascinating thing is that the five of them come from very different backgrounds, yet share certain things in common.  Three were women; two were men. One of the men is in his late teens who has been part of this church family all his life.  One has suffered chronic depression; another is recovering from an addiction.  Three of them have connections with Africa. 

They all did the Christianity Explored course; and all of them found it immensely helpful.  All of them gave a short speech (“a word of testimony”) as to how God had led them to this place of joining the church today.  This is such an encouragement to the rest of the congregation. 

I now make it a policy that anyone transferring from another church should do the CE course.  It’s amazing how people who have been church members for years still find it such a revelation.  It gets them off to a good start within the church family, giving them a small of group they come to know really well.  And it irons out any misunderstandings about the basics of the faith. 

When people ask me how things are going in the church I tend to reply: Nationally, depressing; but locally very encouraging.  You can see why.

JUDE: FIGHTING TRUTH DECAY #3

INTRODUCTION

There are very few people who enjoy conflict.  The vast majority of decent people will do almost anything to avoid situations of confrontation.  So, the soup may be cold, the meat tough and the pudding inedible, but when the waiter asks us if we are enjoying our meal we’ll smile and nod.  We don’t want to complain, we don’t want to make a fuss.  We’ll even pay for the privilege. 

This is how bullies succeed.  They realize that no matter how unhappy we are with their behaviour we’re not going to stand up to them, because the last thing we want is a shouting match. 

That was the gamble Hitler took when he marched German troops into the Rhineland in March 1936 in breach of a condition forced on Germany after World War 1.  It was a huge gamble.  If the French army, stationed on the other side of the border, had marched against him, the Germans would have had to retreat and there’s no doubt Hitler’s regime would have collapsed.  But he guessed correctly that the French had no stomach for a fight.  If only they had, then the tragedy of a second World War might have been avoided.

BRIDGE

Sad to say, but the Christian Church has never been a stranger to conflict.  Down through the centuries Christians have debated, argued, and fought over what we ought to believe. 

During the 4^th century the Church was divided over who Jesus really is: is he God or is he something less than God.  A man called Arius said of Jesus, “There was a time when he was not”; in other words that Jesus was not God and therefore not eternal.  This made sense to a lot of people. 

But Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, refused to compromise on this.  If Jesus were not divine, how could he be our Saviour?  He stuck to his guns, even though it cost him seventeen years in exile.  And in the end, because he had scripture on his side, he won the argument. 

The next generation had to contend with a British monk called Pelagius, who said that we could live a life without sin if we really put our minds to it.  Jesus didn’t die to save us from our sins but to give us an example to follow. 

It was Augustine who stood up against this.  What Pelagius taught was attractive, for it played to human pride.  But pointing to Paul’s letters, Augustine insisted that we are helpless to save ourselves; we are saved by God’s grace alone.

At the Reformation again the question centred on how we are saved from our sins.  Is it God’s work alone; or can we contribute to our salvation by collecting merits like tokens from a cereal box?  Where would we be if Luther and Calvin and Knox had run away from conflict?

Our Covenanting ancestors stood up to the king himself, insisting that there was only one king over their conscience, King Jesus. 

The fact is, if there had never been conflict, if there never had been people willing to stand up for what they believe in no matter the cost, Christianity would never have survived as an identifiable religion, distinct from all the other faiths that command human allegiance. 

Conflict is the anvil upon which the Christian faith has been hammered out.  It has been hard, it has been painful, it has been divisive, but it has also been necessary.

Jude tells his readers that he would rather be writing to them about the salvation we share.  He wanted to write an uplifting, encouraging, feel-good letter.  But he couldn’t.  The situation wouldn’t let him. It would have been negligent of him.  Instead, he had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 

Jude is urging his readers to fight.  To fight for their very survival as Christians. 

Friends, I hope you realize that this is why I and many other minsters have entered the fray in recent weeks.  None of us enjoys conflict; none of us wants a fight.  Indeed, I believe a case could be made against us that in recent years we have erred too much in avoiding conflict.  We have taken the approach of “see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil.”  We had our suspicions, but we said nothing, not wanting to be labelled trouble-makers.  It turns out that even when sin is dangled in front of our noses, we are still called trouble-makers for opposing it. 

We have not sought this fight; nor have we chosen the battle-ground.  Arguments about sex and an individual’s private life are hardly edifying.  We’d rather the cause was something nobler, like the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, or our Presbyterian form of church government.  There has even been some friendly-fire from certain evangelicals saying that this is not the hill to die on. 

Are we making a mountain of out of mole-hill?  Should we agree to disagree?  Is all this conflict unnecessary? 

Let’s look at the situation Jude was facing and ask ourselves: If he were living today, would he be urging us to live in peace with those we disagree with, or would he be telling us to contend for the faith? 

 TEXT

Last week we saw that the situation Jude was confronting was within the Church.  He wasn’t giving a critique on the immorality of pagan society; he was exposing a problem within the Church. 

He identifies the problem in v.4:

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.  They are godless men who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Certain men…have slipped in among you.  That implies that these men were outsiders who had somehow wormed their way into the fellowship, not just as members, but as teachers.  That’s the problem.  They weren’t there to attend worship; they were there to propagate their version of Christianity. 

The Lord Jesus warned that this would happen.  Mt.7:15:

Watch out for false prophets.  They come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.  By their fruit you will recognize them.

Our Lord was aware that just as the Old Testament people of God had been savaged by false prophets, so his Church could easily fall prey to those who would seek to lead people away from the straight and narrow road that leads to life. 

When we examine what it is that the false prophets of the Old Testament did, it’s not that introduced new ideas or beliefs.  They didn’t, for example, question the sacrificial system; they didn’t suggest an alternative method of finding forgiveness of sins. 

Rather, what they did was to tell people what they wanted to hear.  Micah 2:11:

If a liar and deceiver comes and says, I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer, he would be just the prophet for this people.

These prophets were for hire.  Pay them well enough and they’d tell you whatever you wanted to hear—in the name of the Lord.  And, of course, what people wanted to hear most was—Don’t worry, there’s no judgement, you’re ok. And all in the Lord’s name.  

Her leaders judge for a bride, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money.  Yet they lean upon the Lord and say, Is not the Lord among us?  No disaster will come upon us.  (Mic.3:11)

They were false prophets because they lulled their hearers into a false sense of security.  They allowed them to believe that all was well between them and God, when all was not well. 

Now then, what is it that these infiltrators whom Jude so opposed, were teaching? 

They are godless men who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

They change the grace of God into a licence for immorality.  They were doing the very thing that the Apostle Paul warned against in Rom.6. 

The Apostle has been speaking about the wonderful grace of God brought to us through Christ’s death on the cross.  Adam’s one sin led to condemnation; Christ’s one act of obedience brings life for all men.  Our sins are forgiven, not because of anything we can do or say, but because of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

At the beginning of Rom.6 the apostle anticipates an objection:

What shall we say, then?  Shall we on sinning so that grace may increase? 

He anticipates someone arguing that if God is a God of grace, who forgives us without any pre-conditions, without any demand that we reform our ways first, then why not go on sinning so that God can go on forgiving us.  Indeed, why not commit great sins, so that we can show the world just how far God’s grace will stretch.  After all, don’t we sing:

the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives

Not long ago I had a conversation with a Moslem woman who made this very point.  We agreed on so many things—the greatness and majesty of God; the spiritual bankruptcy of our culture; the need to walk humbly before our Maker.  But here’s what she could not comprehend: Jesus being our substitute, Jesus dying for our sins.  The way she saw it, if someone else dies for your sins, there’s no incentive to be good.  Sin all you want, and Jesus will suffer the consequences.

Paul’s critics accused him for encouraging sin.  And it seems they were right.  The men Jude opposed reasoned that God’s grace meant they could sin with impunity.  It was a licence for immorality.  God had given them permission to sin.  And they were teaching others to do the same. 

It’s such an attractive way of thinking.  Here is your eternal “get out of jail free card”.  Christ has died for you and your place in heaven is secure.  So what difference does it make if you sin now and again?  God will forgive—that’s his job. 

How do we answer such an attitude?  Are we going to say that God isn’t really that gracious?  That he isn’t really that merciful?  For in fact, he is. 

Perhaps there is someone in church today who can’t quite grasp this.  You are only too well aware of your sin, how miserable you’ve made life for others, how proud you’ve been, how you’ve hardened your heart against God’s love.  And you’re desperate for peace, desperate to be reconciled to your Heavenly Father.  But you fear you are too far away; that you are beyond God’s reach.  Like the Prodigal Son, you are in a “far country”. 

You hear the gospel message of a free and full pardon simply by trusting in Jesus Christ.  This is what you long for; this is what you yearn for.  But it sounds too good to be true; it sounds too easy. 

Let me assure you: this is the Christian gospel.  All you need to bring to the Lord are your empty hands, open wide, ready to receive his grace.  All he asks is that you believe him when he says he will forgive.  It’s his gift to you and all he wants to hear from you is “thank you” thank you Lord for saving my soul/thank you Lord for making me whole

thank you Lord for giving to me/thy great salvation, so rich, so free.

But having received such a gift: Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?

Paul’s answer to that conclusion is (Rom.6:2): By no means.  Or in the Authorized Version, God forbid.  The Bible translator JB Philips is very English in his version: What a ghastly thought!   

That’s right, it is a ghastly thought.  We died to sin, how can we live in it any longer?   

A Christian is someone who has died to sin.  Death is the penalty for sin; but Christ has paid the penalty for us.  In v.5 Paul talks about being united to Christ.  All that he did, we have done “in Christ.”  When he died, we died.  When he descended to hell, we descended to hell.  When he rose from the grave, we rose from the grave.

And when a Christian appears before the judgement seat of God, as we all surely will, our Heavenly Father will not see our sins, for they have been blotted out by the blood of the Saviour. 

We died to sin, how can we live it any longer?

It is inconceivable that a Christian would want to sin.  It doesn’t make any sense that a Christian would be attracted to sin.  The very idea of wanting to continue living in such a way that contradicts the will of God should be anathema to us. 

So these men who change the grace of God into a license for immorality cannot be embraced as brothers in Christ.  They probably thought themselves very enlightened, very progressive.  They regarded men like Jude as repressed and thrawn to an out-dated morality.  Christ had freed them from the constraints of the law.  The had no fear of the judgement to come.

Look what Jude says of them.  He says they are godless.  They weren’t atheists in the strict sense of the word, but they might as well have been. 

Worst of all, by their behaviour they were denying Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. 

The Lord Jesus called his disciples to a very high standard of morality.  The Old Testament said “do not murder”; Jesus said, don’t even be angry with your brother.  The law said “do not commit adultery”; Jesus warned against bedding someone in your mind.  Jesus told us to go the extra mile, to turn the other cheek, to pray for our enemies. 

These godless men were contradicting all of that.  They might call themselves Christians, but they weren’t following Christ.  They were following their own lusts. 

Ultimately, that’s what sin is.  When we sin we are denying that Jesus Christ is our only Sovereign and Lord, for we are obeying another sovereign, another lord.

Jude, therefore, must urge his readers to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

He doesn’t say that we are to be contentious, seeking controversy for its own sake.  We don’t go looking for a fight.  But when the faith comes under attack we are to defend it.  The Greek word for “contend” means to struggle.  It implies exertion.  It’s the word that was used to describe wrestlers battling out in the ring. 

And it’s more than just defending the faith; it’s more than not just giving ground.  It’s about going on the offensive too, doing all that we can to promote the advance of the gospel.  Fight the good fight of the faith, says Paul to Timothy (1Tim.6:12). 

And note what it is that we are to contend for: not our rights, not our status, not our money, nor our buildings.  Still less our party, our group, our opinions.  We are to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Jude is referring to the fact that Christianity is not a religion that evolved over time like the animistic or pagan religions.  Christianity is a religion with a clear set of beliefs which the apostles taught their first converts and expected them to adhere to in perpetuity. 

Paul, for example, in 1Cor.11:2 says:

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you.

The Christian faith is not like clay which can be moulded and shaped to suit the tastes of each new generation.  Sure, there are certain aspects to our church life that are going to change over the years, such as the hymns we sing.  And there are areas of disagreement which Christians have learned to live with—should we have bishops or not, should we baptise our children or not, should we use set prayers or not.  We agree to disagree on these issues because ultimately whatever side of the fence you come down on does not affect your eternal salvation. 

But when it comes to issues such as who Jesus really is, what he did for us on the cross, his resurrection from the grave, and the authority of Scripture, Christians have never regarded these as peripheral.  If you don’t believe that Jesus is the man who was God, if you don’t believe that he died on the cross as our substitute, if you don’t believe he rose from the dead, if you regard the Bible as useful but not authoritative, call yourself whatever you want: just don’t call yourself a Christian.  For you have departed from the faith once for all entrusted to the saints. 

And isn’t it interesting that what Jude is calling on his readers to fight for is not, in a sense, strict doctrine: it’s about the moral implications of the gospel.  For that too is not peripheral. 

We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

That’s what the gospel is all about; it’s about changing lives; it’s the power of God to transfer sinful men and women from the realm of darkness to the kingdom of his light; it’s about being freed from the tyranny of sin.  It’s not about giving men and women the licence to sin with impunity. 

The present crisis facing the Church is not about secondary issues.  It goes to the very heart of the faith itself, a faith through which we glorify God by demonstrating to the world around us that we are the new creation, who are called to be holy as God is holy. 

To claim that the homosexual life-style is worthy of a child of God; to demand that a same-sex partnership be recognized as on a footing with marriage; to commend such a life-style to others is to deny that Jesus Christ is our only Sovereign and Lord.  It is to turn the grace of God into a licence for immorality. 

Such people will not inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor.6:10).  And therefore they must be resisted.  The sake of those tempted by same-sex attraction; for the sake of the brother or sister seeking to live in conformity with God’s Word; for the sake of the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints, they must be resisted at all costs.

CONCLUSION

Let me assure you, neither I nor like-minded minsters enjoy conflict.  We long to be getting on with the work of the gospel in our parishes.  It’s a distraction we could do without.

But have we learned nothing from history?  Remember Hitler and the re-taking of the Rhineland.  He got away with it.  No one stopped him.  So next it was Austria, then Czechoslovakia, and then Poland and only then world war.

I can’t help asking myself: if we say nothing, do nothing at this time, what next?  What scriptural truth is next for shaving?  The uniqueness of Christ as our only Saviour?  The nature of God as Holy Trinity?  

What moral standards will we depart from?  Can we expected unmarried couples in our manses?  A line has to be drawn in the sand, or the whole edifice will come tumbling down (now there’s a mixed metaphor for you!)

Let me finish by quoting Bible commentator, John Benton ]from Slandering the Angels, Welwyn Commentary series]

 We must contend for the faith whether the gospel is popular or whether it is not.  We must do this when society believes in God and when it does not.  We must do this when it is intellectually respectable to be a Bible believer and when it is not.  We must do it when the established church hierarchy are good men committed to the truth and when they are heretical liberals who sneer at the old gospel.  We must do it when Christianity is the dominant faith in a country and when it has to jostle in the religious market-place of a pluralistic society.

 The church must do this whether it is in the midst of a rising civilisation or whether its culture is collapsing all around it.  The church must do it in a modern world of science and objectivity and in a post-modern/New Age world dominated by image and subjectivity.  The church must do it when it is in the midst of heaven-sent revival or when it is suffering, dwindling and small. 

 It’s the only way to fight truth decay.

High School Easter Music

Today was the last day of the school term and as usual we had our Easter Assembly at the high school.  It was excellent.  In the past I’m sorry to say that the choice of music was not always appropriate.  But this year my colleague David Carmichael liased with a Christian teacher so that the songs were truly worshipful.

Once again I have to say how proud I am of the Christian kids in the school who were willing to stand up in front of fellow pupils and sing what are essentially worship songs.  They sang so beautifully and meaningfully.  I can hardly remember ever feeling a sense of worship at a school service!

I came away thinking, What a testimony.  My prayer is that in his mercy the Lord will allow some of the seed that was planted to fall in fertile soil; that someone will remember something of what was said or sung and that the Holy Spirit will use that to bring them to Christ.

More press comment

I’ve managed to get a copy of the Scottish Daily Express article.  It even gives us a picture of a smiling Scott Rennie which looks as if it was taken yesterday. 

The interesting thing about this story is that this is the first time any one has mentioned the 1967 report on homosexuality when the Assembly clearly came out against homosexuality as sinful.  I think everyone thought it was so long ago it didn’t count any more! 

The Commission is not a “powerful committee” but 10% of last year’s Commissioners to the Assembly.  The idea is to allow cases to be heard between Assemblies because in the past everyone had to wait till May to have cases resolved. 

 

KIRK IN CRISIS OVER GAY MINISTER

 

ROW: Scott Rennie is at the centre of a dispute

Thursday March 26,2009

By Judith Duffy

THE Church of Scotland faces its biggest crisis in a century following a row over whether an openly gay minister should be allowed to take up a new post.

Reverend Scott Rennie was appointed as minister at Aberdeen’s Queen’s Cross Church in January with the backing of the congregation.

But the move was blocked following a complaint from around 12 dissenting members of Aberdeen Presbytery on the grounds that they objected to his lifestyle.

Yesterday a powerful Church of Scotland committee voted by 42-41 to pass the appeal to the General Assembly in May for further scrutiny. The outcome is expected to have “huge implications” for the Kirk and threatens to lead to a split between different factions in the church.

Divorced father-of-one Mr Rennie, who is minister of Brechin Cathedral, Angus where he lives with his gay partner David, said the decision would cause “continuing distress”.

He said: “The 2009 General Assembly will be a seminal moment for the Kirk, for the many gay people in its membership, and especially for those who serve as ordained elders and ministers. We will discover whether the Church’s own anti-discrimination legislation, passed as recently as 2007, means anything – or whether it is worthless.”

However, Reverend Ian Aitken, of New Stockethill in Aberdeen, who was one of the complainers, argued the anti-discrimination legislation allowed gay ministers to fulfil their position, as long as they did not engage in homosexual acts.

He added: “This debate is crucial and what we need to do is make a decision  whether we should move away from what links us with our sister churches.
“This is not a witch hunt, but we should not be making ad-hoc decisions without considerate reflection.”

Reverend Lindsay Biddle, chaplain of Affirmation Scotland, a pro-gay group in the church set up three years ago, said the decision by the General Assembly would set a “very important precedent”.

She said: “The climate in the Church of Scotland is such that gay and lesbian ministers are not free to be out, especially ministers who have partners. What Scott Rennie has done is brave in making his life and relationship open. This is not just about one man and one church, it’s about all of us.”

Evangelical group Forward Together claimed the situation is the biggest crisis facing the Kirk since 1843, when hundreds of ministers broke away to form the Free Church of Scotland.

Yesterday chairman Reverend Douglas Cranston backed the decision by the Commission of Assembly to refer the case to the General Assembly.

He said: “While the Commission has the power to deal with the case, its outcome carries such wide implications for the whole Church that as representative a constituency as possible should make the final decision.

“For at least 4,000 years, those who have based their ethics on the teachings of the Bible have regarded the practice of homosexuality as inconsistent with the profession of faith of the God of the Bible.”

Same sex marriage has long been a thorny issue for the church.

In 2006, a decision by the General Assembly to allow ministers to conduct civil partnerships was subsequently rejected by local presbyteries.

The Church’s position on homosexuality is derived from a ruling in 1967, which advocated celibacy for gays. It has previously stated there are openly gay ministers within the Church, but this is the first time such an appointment has been challenged.

A spokeswoman for the Church of Scotland said the Commission had decided to refer the case on as it was a matter of “important principle”.