MISSION TO KENYA!

Tonight I will be flying to Nairobi with some
of my work colleagues as part of a team
organised by a charity called 'MEAK'
(Medical & Educational Aid to Kenya).
www.meak.org

The plan is for us to take over an operating
theatre at the Kenyatta National Hospital
for a week and do the kind of 'open heart'
surgery patients there wouldn't normally
have access to. I'm part of the children's
intensive care team. I have never been to
Africa before so it will be a terrific experience
for me.

Twenty years ago I spent some time with
'YWAM' (Youth with a Mission) doing some
short term evangelistic mission; I only went to
Denmark and felt not a little admiration for
those who went further afield. In my own small
way I hope that I can make a difference this
coming week even if it is not a Christian
enterprise as such.

God Willing I'll file a report upon my return!

The 144,000.

Central Focus Bible Studies follow the
academic year and last term we concluded
our look at the book of Revelation.This
coming term we will be studying "The Upper
Room Discourse" (John 14-17). We have an
introductory talk on Wednesday 25th April
starting at 8pm at St Andrew's in St Mary
Axe, next to "The Gherkin" in the City of
London. If you are in the vicinity why not
drop in?

But before we move on from Revelation
I have a couple of observations I would
like to pass on to blogworld.
I led our group's study on Revelation
chapter 7 when we considered the
significance of "The 144,000"!
Is this a literal number? Or is it a
metaphor? The Jehovah's Witnesses
have gotten into any number of
twists and turns over this, but so
too have some of my brethren. The
real mystery is why has it produced
such bafflement? Because the very
same passage includes clues about
how it should be understood!

First up; the list of names suggesting
"Israel", isn't as straight forward as it
looks - which any modest student of
the Bible already knows.

The key to understanding it as a
metaphor is that it "says" it is a
metaphor! John "hears" the number
'144,000' and their "Names" - but
when he sees he sees a countless
number from all tribes and nations!
All literalists are stuck at this point
[to them the passage simply describes
what "is"] they do not see the meaning
beyond.

"What does '144,000' mean?" I asked at
our Bible study. "It's the complete
number" someone said, " it's twelve
times twelve times one thousand -
the superlative complete number!"

"That is absolutely right!" I replied,
"but that is what the number IS,
the question is, what does the number
MEAN?"

Obviously my telepathy wasn't all it
could be as I was met with a pregnant
pause! "What do we mean by a
superlative complete number?" I went
on.

"Why is it 12,000 - 12,000 - 12,000 etc?
Why not 11,999?

Obviously the group was stumped so I
put in my answer - in all that countless
number no one is missing! Everyone who
is meant to be there, will be there! And
furthermore they will be there by name!
Not a single one will be missing!
THAT IS WHAT THE METAPHOR MEANS!

G.K. CHESTERTON on Humility.

"What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place.
Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty
has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was
never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about
himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been
exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man
does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert -
himself."

Quoted from the chapter called "The Suicide of Thought"
in his book "Orthodoxy", published in 1908.

ARGY-BARGY ABOUT
PENAL SUBSTITUTION!

In so far as the watching world takes any
interest in Christian doctrine it should
come as no surprise that the subject of
"penal substitution" is the one to come
under the fiercest attack.

"Penal substitution" is the belief that
on the cross Jesus bore the punishment
rightly due to sinful humanity in their
place. From first to last the sacrifice of
Jesus is about God's love and mercy
towards an undeserving mankind. As
such it is hardly surprising that it should
be so vehemently attacked for it
presupposes that we need rescuing...
principally from God Himself.

In recent days there has been a furore in
the media surrounding comments made by
the Dean of St Albans attacking this belief.
His supporters have also waded in. And,
unsurprisingly my fellow Evangelicals have
risen to the bait. The media love this sort
of argy-bargy; it makes for great theatre
and perhaps that's why the Dean was
invited to speak on BBC radio... it would
entertain the listeners and give the Dean
a 'puff'. (Pun intended!)

While it is tempting to want equal air time
to rebut the Dean's opinions I personally
have the gravest doubts about the wisdom
of joining in a public fracas - TV & Radio
are not conducive to thoughtful exposition
of Christian doctrine. These are media
suited to the instant 'sound bite', not to
considered reflection. Beyond showing
that evangelicals are correct, we will only
win such arguments by demonstrating
that our theology is much deeper and far
richer and ultimately more life changing
than the Dean's views. You can't do that in
a sound bite! Our opponents can achieve
their aims: we cannot.

By participating in media argy bargy we
may score points within our own
constituency but we often fail to connect
with the wider audience; we concede a
propaganda coup to our opponents and we
confer the benediction of 'impartiality' to
a media that is anything but. The best
response is to faithfully teach the Bible, as
we always have, from the public pulpit and
graciously refuse to be so easily baited.

I believe that we should respond with the
care and the grace our doctrine of "penal
substitution" demands of us - and so shame
those who claim the mantle of Christ and yet
misrepresent this most wonderful of all
Christian doctrines.

ps 15-April-07.
There is a new book out which comes with a
great recommendation (I've ordered it!)
"PIERCED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS:
rediscovering the glory of penal substitution",
by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey & Andrew Sach.
Published by IVP.

'JESUS OF THE SCARS'...
by Edward Shillito.

"The other gods were strong;
but thou wast weak;
they rode, but thou didst
stumble to a throne;
But to our wounds only
God's wounds can speak,
and not a god has wounds,
but thou alone."

THE ANACHRONISTIC CALVINIST.

One of the issues which Christians debate among
themselves is the issue of 'free-will' versus
'pre-destination'. In essence the question is;
'what, if anything, do we contribute to our
own salvation?'

Once I was discussing this topic with a relative
who dismissed me as a "Calvinist".... as if that
alone was sufficient to clinch the argument from
his point of view! Upto that point in time I had
never actually read anything by John Calvin;
I'd heard of him but never read anything by him.
The opinions my relative had taken such exception
to were founded exclusively on Ephesians 2 despite
his assertion to the contrary. In any event; so what?
Being accused of having Calvinistic tendencies isn't
proof that my grasp of Ephesians 2 was wrong. And
quite why he thought I would alight on this 16th
century French protestant author and attribute
all authority to his words for no readily apparent
reason remains a mystery to me to this day.

That said I have no reason to suppose that I am
not a Calvinist - I can only assume that the man
was expounding the very thing I'd seen for myself
in Ephesians. For this reason I would describe
myself as an "Anachronistic Calvinist"! I drew
my theology from the Bible and later discovered
that a label was attributed to it. The fact that
the word "Calvinist" is used pejoratively is fine
by me; I am not ashamed of the New Testament
message about the sheer grace of God towards
sinners like me. And I understand why many
people detest such a message.... it is a challenge
to human pride.

Before I read Ephesians chapter two I had a
notion that salvation worked like this; Jesus has
contributed 99.99999999999999999999999999%
of what I need to be saved, I just need to add my
0.00000000000000000000000000000001%
to make it effective. As I read what Jesus and his
disciples taught I quickly realised that there was
a HUGE problem with this theory. It means that
Jesus actually saves no-one! For sure no-one is
saved without Him but all that he did at The Cross
is ineffectual - it saves nobody if we don't add
something to it to make it work. On this reckoning
Jesus saves everyone potentially but no one in
actuality. It is my 0.000000000000000000001%
which really provides the magic ingredient - it may
be small but it is that that makes all the difference
between being saved and not being saved. Do
you see the issue? Am I saved by the grace of
Jesus Christ alone, or is it a case of "Jesus plus
something else"? (Which inevitably degenerates
to "Something Else plus jesus!" especially when
human egos are involved). Remember that even
our faith is a gift of God" so that no-one can boast"
Eph 2 v9.

If my theory was right there is something intrinsic
to me which aids my salvation. I am somehow
intrinsically more loving, or more humble, or more
innately 'sprititual' than others; something within
me that makes me better than my neighbour.
Do you see the problem? Grace properly
understood means God's totally unmerited favour.
Even "my" faith is in reality God's gift! See Ephesians
2 v8. And that is good news!
Totally unmerited favour. Wow! Thank God!
Thank God my salvation isn't down to me -
not even 0.0000000000000000001% worth - if
it was I would be lost for sure! God alone is
glorified when we acknowledge the depth of his
amazing grace.

Speaking to another acquaintance about these
things, she said "but how can I be sure I'm saved
if it's all down to God?" [This injects uncertainty
she implied]. She went on to say "I know that I
will always be found faithful" [and on that basis she
can have assurance of salvation]. When I heard her
say this I could shudder for her - if she couldn't
see that she was relying on her self rather than
Christ I'm not sure I could explain it to her.

It is worth saying at this point that the phrase
"self righteous Christian" is a contradiction in
terms. An individual who has put their trust in
Jesus is claiming Christ's righteous in place of
their own because they realise their own
righteousness is "as filthy rags" to quote the
prophet Isaiah. You can trust in yourself and
your own merits or you can trust exclusively
in the merits of Jesus Christ when you stand
before God but you cannot do both. This is not
to say that some people don't want it both ways
and are prepared to give it a try! The question
ultimately is this: who or what exactlty are
you putting your trust in?

Paul writes in Philippians 3 that he considers all
the religious 'brownie points' he'd earned by
religious observances prior to his conversion
(yes, he was "religious" before he got converted
from it!) as 'rubbish' "that I may gain Christ and
be found in him, not having a righteouness of my
own..... but that which comes through faith in
Christ". ['Faith' in the 100% sense, not the
99.999999999999999999999999999% version].
This is the big difference between 'religion' (which
is about clocking up merit by means of religious
observances which is the natural default setting of
us humans - bearing in mind that even atheists
have their means of moral 'one-upmanship') and
The Gospel of Jesus which is about trust in him
and a positive rejection of all such self confidence
..... even if it is only 0.0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000001%.

ps To this day I haven't yet read "Calvin's Institutes"
but then neither had the Apostle Paul - I guess that
makes him an "Anachronistic Calvinist" as well! Hmm....
Jesus too!

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY.

It is a curious fact that the word 'gullible' does not
appear in the OED.It is in WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
and CHAMBER'S DICTIONARY but for some reason
the compilers of the OED have missed it out!