Pigdon, Arthur. The Pigdon Papers: Questions I've Been Asked. McCrae, Victoria:
Privately published, 2000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 5 -

 

- 6 -

About the author

Arthur Pigdon graduated from the theological College of the Churches of Christ in Melbourne and served in full-time ministries in Victoria and South Australia at Port Pirie, Geelong, Dandenong, Gawler, Bentleigh, North Balwyn and Red Hill and in part-time ministries at Mont Albert, Berwick and East Kew. During this time, he conducted special missions at Gardiner and East Kew and was Australian Director of an evangelical witness to Jewish people. He served on several conference committees and for a time was the editor of The Pamphlet Club and sub-editor of the quarterly journal, Israel's Anchorage. He is the author of the semi-scientific book, Rethinking Evolution, and the daily devotional book, Seeds of the Spirit. He is currently living with his wife Connie at McCrae, Victoria.

 

- 7 -

Introduction

Christian leaders have a responsibility to give their people guidance on all spiritual matters that relate to their behaviour and daily life. These articles are an attempt to do that. Most of the subjects dealt with are controversial and that is why this kind of background information is needed so that people can develop an informed opinion instead of having to subscribe to dogma laid down by the church. Churches of Christ recognise the validity of different interpretations and conflicting beliefs among those who have a common loyalty to Jesus Christ and they have stressed the importance of liberty of conscience on religious matters. They have never issued official statements on doctrines or behaviour. They have taken the Bible as an authoritative and adequate guide in all matters of faith and practice.

This awareness, that those who seek after truth often hold different and sometimes opposing opinions, means that we must accept and respect each other's point of view but it is also important that we express views on these matters, so that, through dialogue, the weaknesses of arguments can be revealed and a degree of concensus can be reached. I am not aware of much printed material on some of the questions raised in these articles so I offer them as a contribution to those who are finding difficulty forming an opinion on any of these issues. They represent my personal opinion only.

These papers were written over several years in response to issues that were under discussion at the time and a number were published by the Federal Literature Department of Churches of Christ but are now out of print. Issues change with time and I am aware that some of the questions dealt with may no longer be relevant today. Nevertheless, I have included them as they will provide an historical record of the kind of questions that were discussed in Christian circles in the twentieth century. The short article on Postmodernism was added to introduce and explain this term which is in current use in literary circles but which need not concern the average reader.

Arthur Pigdon
McCrae, 1999

 

- 9 -

1. How can I be born again?

This article was prepared to simplify the meaning of the phrase 'born again': It explains the process of conversion and the steps we need to take to be assured of salvation.

BEFORE JOINING any church, we need to be aware of the unique nature of the Christian church. Outwardly, it is a religious organization that has a membership, conducts services, owns property and propagates its beliefs. It is possible to regard the church as just another community organization, differing only in its religious emphasis. It is even possible to become a member of a congregation, without being a member of the true church that Jesus established. No one denomination is the true church.

The true church is composed of all those of every denomination, or of none, who have entered into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ, who alone imparts eternal life and makes us part of his body, the church. Membership in Christ's church involves more than our own choice and decision; it is something which Jesus confers on those who have responded to his call to discipleship, and have been reconciled to God, through his atoning death.

To show the difference between having membership in a church and belonging to the true church, an illustration might be helpful. In the early days of aviation, aeroplanes were small and vulnerable so the parachute was invented to save the lives of pilots when a crash was imminent. Those early parachutes were made of silk obtained from silkworm caterpillars, so the pilots whose lives had been saved by a parachute were automatically enrolled in an exclusive group called 'The Caterpillar Club'.

- 10 -

The true church is like that. You cannot just join it. It is composed only of those who have been saved by Jesus Christ. Until a person has entered into a covenant relationship with Christ, they cannot be part of his church. Membership in a particular denomination is not enough. In Acts 2:47, we are told that 'The Lord added to the church those that were being saved'. When we, by an act of free choice, commit our lives to Jesus Christ, we become part of his body, the church. The true church is composed of all those who have accepted God's offer of pardon for sin on the basis of Jesus' death, and who now acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord of their life. There is no mystery about becoming part of the true church. The conditions are clearly set out in the New Testament and are generally agreed to by most churches, with some variation in details. In the third chapter of John's gospel, we have the record of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus told this religious leader that his observance of a strict moral and religious code was not enough. He needed to experience a spiritual rebirth to enter the kingdom of God. This spiritual birth is something that God produces in us when we meet the conditions. How we become part of Christ's Church A careful study of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles shows that there are several conditions we must meet before we can experience this spiritual birth. The first condition is repentance. To 'repent' means to turn around, to change our attitude towards God, from indifference to belief and trust, and to change our behaviour accordingly. It is more than being sorry for past sins. Repentance is a turning to God to enable him to begin transforming our natures to be like his own divine nature. It is not self-reformation but an acknowledgment that our own efforts to be good have failed and we are looking to God to provide the will and the power to bring about radical changes in our lives.

By repentance, we move from an attitude of unbelief or rebellion towards God to an attitude of trust and belief in his wisdom, love and power. Repentance is asking God if there is anything in our lives he wants to change and acting on the inner guidance we receive. We need to read the teaching of Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament where God's standards of behaviour are clearly set out. So the first condition for joining a church, is to undergo a change of heart that issues in a lifestyle in conformity with the will of God.

- 11 -

The second condition is a belief that Jesus is the Son of God. It is not enough to believe that Jesus was a good man and a great teacher and reformer. Jews, Moslems, and many others believe this but they are not Christians. When Peter expressed his belief that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, Jesus accepted his statement and said that this was the foundation on which he would build his church. The church is founded on the divinity of Jesus. This is the one doctrinal test that separates Christians from all others and that binds all Christians together. Mere intellectual assent to this is not enough. Belief implies that we will honour, worship and serve him with joy and obedience.

The third condition for church membership is a commitment to discipleship. This is the point of decision. Many fail at this point because, although they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they are unwilling to make a wholehearted commitment of themselves to love and serve him as a total way of life. Discipleship is not a loose relationship but a definite covenant and pledge; a commitment to a master-servant relationship between ourselves and Jesus Christ.

By this act of commitment, we link our lives with all believers through the centuries who have heard the call of Jesus, 'Follow me', and responded with a life of discipleship. Disciple means learner; one who places themselves under the discipline of a Master. Until we enter into this covenant of discipleship to Jesus Christ we are not part of the true church.

The fourth condition for church membership is baptism in water. All churches recognise the requirement of baptism and practice it in some form but over the centuries, a number of variations in practice have arisen. However, there is one form that all churches recognise as scriptural. It requires the candidate to be sufficiently mature in years to be able to make a personal decision to be a Christian and fulfil the first three conditions outlined above.

As to the mode of baptising, none deny that immersion is the original meaning of the word, that it is symbolically consistent, that it was the form used by the early church and by Jesus at his own baptism. The scriptural basis for other modes is challenged by many competent scholars and has always been a subject of debate in the church. (See the article on baptism p. 17).

New Christians would be well advised to observe the ordinance of baptism in the way that is universally recognised as scriptural. No Christian church will question your baptism if you were old enough to have made your own

- 12 -

decision in this matter and if you were immersed in water following the example of Jesus and the practice of the early church. Baptism should follow closely on the first three steps because it is the ritual that is the symbolic expression of these inner changes. It marks a new beginning. It is our signature on the covenant we have made with Jesus Christ for our salvation.

The privileges of being part of Christ's church

After we have fulfilled these four conditions God does four things for us which change our status and our relationship.

First, He forgives our sins and cancels our guilt. He does this on the basis of Jesus' death on our behalf. John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and said, 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world'. (John 1:29) And Jesus said of the Passover wine, 'This is my blood of the covenant that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'. (Mark 14:24) We need to ask for God's forgiveness and believe that we receive it, so that we can be released from destructive guilt.

Christians may still sin but they know that God's forgiveness is always available when they confess their failure and seek his pardon. When we know that we are truly forgiven and accepted by Jesus, with no reservations, it frees us to make a fresh start. The apostle Paul felt deep guilt and remorse because he had persecuted Christ' followers but he knew that Christ had forgiven him so he was able to say, 'Forgetting those things which are behind I press forward . . .' (Philippians 3:13)

Second, Jesus promises us eternal life. He said, 'He who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgement but is passed from death to life'. (John 5:24) Paul reminds us that Jesus 'abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel'. (2 Tim. 1:10) He has removed the fear of death and replaced it with a joyful anticipation of sharing in Christ's eternal kingdom.

But eternal life is more than everlasting life. It is a different dimension of life. Jesus said, 'This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent'. (John 17:3) It is knowing God in the spirit, as a living experience, here and now.

Third, God gives us the Holy Spirit as a present helper and companion. John the Baptist promised that Jesus would baptise his followers with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Fire is a symbol of purification in the Bible. After

- 13 -

we come to Christ, he begins to cleanse our natures and change our habits and ways of thinking. He does this by planting his Spirit within us. The Holy Spirit communicates with our spirit revealing to us the changes that God desires to make in our life and, in addition, he gives us the power to change.

At his first meeting with the disciples after he rose from the dead, Jesus said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'. (John 20:22) The church era commenced with the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was promised to all believers. (Acts 2:38-39) The Holy Spirit is God's provision for the perfecting of Christ's disciples and the growth of the church. In giving us the Holy Spirit, Jesus has given us all the resources we need to live for him.

Fourth, Jesus incorporates us into his church. He makes us a member of his family; our fellow Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ; we become part of an international spiritual fellowship that bridges nationality, colour, class, and all denominational divisions. We are bound together by a common loyalty to Jesus Christ. The Bible likens the church to a body in which each part needs the other for its proper functioning.

Paul told his converts, 'You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the cornerstone, in which the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit'. (Eph. 2:19-22)

Because its individual members are not perfect, neither is the church perfect. However, even in its imperfection, it is the instrument Jesus chose for our growth and encouragement and for the proclaiming of his message to the world. He said, 'I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it'. (Matt. 16:18) These four conditions and promises are generally agreed to by all the churches. It is by our participation in them that we become part of the body of Christ, the living church.

Love defies analysis but evokes a response

By trying to simplify the gospel in this way, we may have also obscured it and missed its very essence. Like a child who pulls a beautiful rose apart to discover the secret of its fragrance, we have so analysed the gospel that we have made it sound like a business arrangement with God and we have thus destroyed

- 14 -

its true fragrance. Gospel means 'good news' and the good news is that we are not orphans in an impersonal world but that we have a heavenly Father who loves each of us passionately. He sent his Son to tell us that despite our mistakes and waywardness he still loves us because we are his children. He is grieved when we suffer and he himself suffers because we have scorned the love he offers. He yearns to restore the broken relationship.

Jesus put the whole gospel into a simple and beautiful picture in the story of the Father who longed for his wayward son to come home and when he saw him returning he ran to meet him. Ignoring his ragged clothes and his prepared plea for forgiveness, the father embraced him and was so lavish in his welcome that the son knew, beyond all shadow of doubt, that he was loved, wanted and forgiven. (See Luke 15:11-32) When out of our own failure and wretchedness we turn to God in an effort to rebuild our lives, we instinctively fulfil the conditions we have already listed. The steps we listed are merely a road map to help us find our way home to God.

But there is an even deeper truth we should not overlook. The Son who came and endured misunderstanding and crucifixion at the hands of those he loved was more than just the Father's messenger. Matthew calls him Emmanuel which means, 'God with us'. John says, 'The Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us'. Paul said the same thing in a different way. He said, 'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself'. He said Jesus was 'the visible likeness of the invisible God'. Jesus himself said, 'The Father is in me and I am in the Father' and 'He that has seen me has seen the Father'.

Without going into the theology of the nature of Jesus and his relation to the Father, it is evident that their identities are so closely interwoven that it is true to say that the eternal Spirit of God lived and suffered in Jesus. God himself entered into the stream of human life and suffered with us and for us because he loved us so much. When we respond to that love and restore the relationship with our spiritual Father, we become God's children in a new rid deeper sense, we become brothers and sisters in Christ, members of the family of God and part of the universal spiritual church.

What if we neglect or reject Christ?

Some have rejected Jesus' claim on their life and refused to join the church because they have observed the inconsistencies of some of its members. They

- 15 -

regard this as hypocrisy and, because they have high ideals and standards of honesty themselves, they would sooner make no profession than fail to live up to the high standards they feel would be required of them if they professed to be a Christian. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the church. It is not composed of saints, as the word is commonly understood, but of sinners who admit that they are not perfect and need God's forgiveness.

There are three main reasons for attending church. First, we come to a worship service to honour God. We meet with others in a public recognition that we have a Creator who deserves our worship and praise. We address him through worship in song and prayer. We express our thanks to him for his gift of life and his provision for all our needs. In the communion service we gratefully remember that he came to our earth and experienced life as we know it, showing compassion for the poor and the sick, and voluntarily accepted death by crucifixion to redeem us from our sins. In our remembrance of his spirit of unconquered love under great provocation we find strength to love and forgive in the constant struggle to maintain harmonious relationships with others.

Second, we attend church for instruction and inspiration. We enter this world as little children, knowing nothing. Every parent knows the value of education and would not think of allowing their children to grow up without a good education. We also need education about spiritual truths and values. Our knowledge of God does not come to us by intuition but only through the things we are taught from the Bible. God revealed his will and purpose through the prophets and especially through his Son, Jesus Christ. He commanded that the truths he had revealed should be taught to each succeeding generation.

He also commanded that one day should be set apart every seven days in which we would rest from normal work and have the opportunity for worship, meditation and instruction. We greatly impoverish our lives if we fail to develop the spiritual side of our natures by learning about God's purpose in creation and how we can cooperate with him to fulfil that purpose. Instruction also provides motivation and inspiration. We all know right from wrong but often we lack the motivation to choose aright. In the company of a group where ideals are taught and upheld, we find the inspiration we need to live up to our Christian ideals.

Third, we attend church for the fellowship and friendship with others of

- 16 -

like faith and ideals. One of the first names for Christians was 'brethren'. It was the common term for the disciples. They were spiritual brothers and sisters, members of the same spiritual family, bound together by their love for the Lord. This is a very important element in every congregation. Jesus commanded his followers to love one another as he had loved them. Loving, caring and sharing are marks of the true church.

An isolated Christian who does not regularly attend some place of worship is an oddity. An unfriendly church is an imperfect church; an essential element is lacking. The church is the largest international organization in the world. Wherever you go in your travels you will find worshipping Christians and immediately you have friends and 'family' to welcome you. Friendship is love in action. In the fellowship of the church we can express the love that Jesus' Spirit plants in our heart and we will find that we are loved in return.

Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour . . . Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph. 5:23-27)

 

- 17 -

2. Why is baptism necessary?

This article was first published in 1978 as Pamphlet 357 by the Federal Literature Committee of Churches of Christ and it is now out of print. It sets out the reason why Churches of Christ may not accept into full membership, persons who have only been 'baptised' as infants.

Baptism and church membership

RELIGIONS EXPRESS their essential faith in the rituals they practice. The ritual of any religion is the key to its understanding. The ritual of baptism initiates a person into the Christian church. It is associated with salvation and so is at the very heart of Christian belief. Right views about baptism are therefore important.

Churches of Christ are guided by a commonly accepted principle in the doctrines they teach. This is that they teach and practice doctrines that are recognised as having scriptural warrant by the scholarship of the whole church. If total agreement is not found, then they support only those matters which the weight of such scholarship supports. The consensus of scholarship is the only rational principle of biblical interpretation.

It is important to apply this principle to baptism because this is an area of wide diversity of practice. This diversity has come about because this principle has been ignored. The question we must ask is 'What is Bible Baptism?' In considering this we must have in mind two questions:

- 18 -

(1) How should baptism be performed?
(2) To whom should baptism be administered?

The mode and the candidate are two distinct aspects and must be considered separately.

How should baptism be performed?

For a definition of baptism, do not go to the dictionary. Dictionaries give the current meaning of words. This word has acquired meanings through history which it did not have when Jesus used it in New Testament days. We must go to the dictionaries of the New Testament times. These are the Greek lexicons.

The Greek lexicons reveal the interesting fact that the word in Greek is spelt baptizo, meaning 'to baptise', and baptisma meaning 'baptism'. These words were never translated but brought over into English in an anglicised form. In the verb, the 'o' ending was changed to 'e', forming 'baptise', and in the noun, the last letter 'a' was dropped forming the word 'baptism'. Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon gives the meaning 'to dip repeatedly; of ships, to sink them; to bathe, to be soaked in wine, to be head and ears in debt, to be drowned'. The root bapto is used of dipping steel in water to temper it, of dipping cloth in dye, of ships being submerged beneath the waves and sunk. Because any object so dipped in water was washed the Greek word was also used in the secondary sense of washing. In the New Testament it is used on several occasions of ceremonial washings, as in Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38.

Christian baptism grew out of proselyte baptism (converts to Judaism) which required the immersion of the whole body. John the Baptist baptised the river Jordan at a place where there was 'much water'. (John 3:23) In the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia article presenting the non- immersionist view, the following admission is made: 'If the evidence from written texts, whether ancient canons or writings of the earlier Fathers, be studied by themselves, the natural conclusion would seem to be that immersion was the almost universal form of administering the rite'. The same article adds, 'It may be admitted at once that immersion, where the whole body including the head is plunged into a pool of pure water, gives a more vivid picture of the cleansing of the soul from sin; and that complete surrounding with water suits better the metaphors of burial in Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12'. Karl Barth of the Reformed Church, which practices infant baptism, says in his booklet, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism, 'The Greek

- 19 -

word baptizein originally and properly describes the process by which a man or an object is completely immersed in water and then withdrawn from it again. Primitive baptism carried out in this manner had in its mode, exactly like the circumcision of the Old Testament, the character of a direct threat to life, succeeded immediately by the corresponding deliverance and preservation, the raising from baptism. One can hardly deny that baptism carried out as immersion--as it was in the West until well on into the Middle Ages--showed what was represented in far more expressive fashion than did the affusion (pouring of water on the candidate) which later became customary, especially when this affusion was reduced from real wetting to a sprinkling and eventually in practice to a mere moistening with as little eater as possible.' (p. 9)

It is worth noting that the Greek church has always baptised by immersion. This practice of the Greeks themselves is surely the best possible definition of the command contained in the Greek word baptizo.

How the church altered Christ's command

The Didache (circa. A.D. 100) says that baptism should be in living (flowing) water, cold or warm and adds, 'but if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost'. Here is a very early mention of non-immersion and it is permitted for use in emergencies only. This method is shown in pictures from early times. Thus there were two forms in use. The usual and accepted form of immersion and pouring water on the head for emergencies. Thus, quite early in the history of the church, man began to tamper with the scriptural command and took it upon himself to authorise a variation in mode. Does man have the right to alter what Christ has given?

Sprinkling was occasionally used for sick or infirm persons but those who received the rite in this form were somewhat despised. Cyprian (3rd century) was asked for a ruling if this was valid and he ruled that it was and his opinion gave sprinkling a validity in exceptional cases. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says that sprinkling did not attain general use till the 13th century. The Roman Catholic Council at Ravenna in A.D. 1311, officially approved sprinkling for the first time. It did not become the custom in England and Scotland until after the Reformation.

Thus we find pouring of water over the candidate was approved by the church fathers and sprinkling was approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

- 20 -

Neither finds their source in the New Testament or the teaching and practice of Christ and the apostles.

John Calvin, the father of Presbyterianism and a leader of the Reformation, helped to bring sprinkling over into the Reformed Churches. He stated that 'the church had a right to change the ordinance to suit herself'. If we accept that principle we make the Bible obsolete. John Knox brought the practice of sprinkling to Scotland but it was not recognised by the Established church for 100 years. The Edinburgh Encyclopedia says, 'In Scotland and England this new doctrine was bitterly opposed and the primitive practice of immersion was stoutly contended for'.

The Westminster Assembly met in A.D. 1643. The question of the mode of baptism was under consideration. When it came to the vote, it was equally divided. Dr Lightfoot was in the chair and he gave his casting vote in favour of sprinkling. Thus it became the law of the church and the following year Parliament made it the law of the realm. Those who were not sprinkled were treated as outlaws; they were deprived of the right of inheritance and the right of burial by the church.

It was during the period of controversy that preceded this conference, that the King James version of the Bible was translated. The translation of the Greek word baptizo was a controversial issue. If they had translated the word 'dip' or 'immerse' it would have settled the controversy. Many of the Bishops favoured the new practice of sprinkling yet they did not dare to translate baptizo 'sprinkle' or 'pour' for that would have been an incorrect translation. So they took a middle course and followed the wording of the Bishop's Bible of 1561 which declined to translate it at all but coined a new English word by bringing it over from the Greek with the last letter changed making it 'baptize'. It is interesting to note that the Jewish translator of the New Testament, Dr Schonfield, who is not theologically involved in this matter, boldly translates baptizo as 'immerse' wherever it occurs.

Until the Church of England Prayer Book was revised in the 20th century, it recognised immersion as the more valid mode. It instructed the priest to dip the child in the water, but permitted water to be sprinkled on the child if it was sickly. Time and usage has led to the exception becoming the normal practice. Some Australian Anglican churches have baptistries for the immersion of adults. There is one in St. Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne, and another in the Bentleigh Anglican church. This is a practical recognition of the validity of immersion as a scriptural form of baptism.

- 21 -

To whom should baptism be administered?

Jesus was thirty years of age when he was baptised in the river Jordan. He commanded his apostles to make disciples, first by teaching them then by baptising them. The baptism followed the teaching. Every case of baptism in the New Testament is of persons who could believe and repent, except perhaps, those unnamed in household baptisms; here their age is not known. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, 'We have no record in the New Testament of the baptism of infants'. Walker's A History of the Christian Church says, 'Regarding persons baptised, the strong probability is that, till past the middle of the second century, they were only those of years of discretion. The first mention of infant baptism, and an obscure one, was about A.D. 185 by Irenaeus . . . Infant baptism did not become universal till the sixth century'. (p. 95)

The theology behind infant baptism

Why did infant baptism come in at all? Because baptism was linked in scripture with forgiveness of sin and eternal life (Acts 2:38, John 3:5), the rite came to be regarded as having powers within itself. Tertullian believed it conveyed eternal life. (Walker p. 94) Cyprian argued in its favour from the doctrine of original sin. (Ibid. p. 95)

Augustine, in the 5th century, taught doctrines that made infant baptism theologically necessary and it became the prevailing custom. Augustine taught that 'the whole human race, even the youngest infant, is a mass of perdition and as such deserves the wrath of God'. (Walker p. 181) He also taught that 'sins both original and personal are forgiven at baptism'. He wrote: 'The churches maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and the partaking of the Supper of the Lord, it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or salvation or eternal life'. (Ibid. p. 183)

This flawed theology led to the equally flawed heresy of baptismal regeneration, that is, that a person is saved by the administering of the rite of baptism without any faith or repentance in the candidate. Churches of Christ reject this non-personal view of salvation completely. The strange thing is that some churches do not accept these doctrines today but they still retain the practice of infant baptism.

Mr E. L. Williams, a former Principal of the College of the Bible, in his pamphlet 'The Church, the Ministry and the Sacraments', has written, 'Churches of Christ have contended earnestly for the fundamental revelation

- 22 -

that Christianity is essentially moral and personal. On this ground, supported by the authority of the New Testament, we have contended for believer's baptism . . . Baptism is an expression of their faith and personal acceptance. It is a conscious, deliberate, personal act by which they are formally initiated into the body of Christ . . . This emphasis has excluded all thoughts of magic and displaced any doctrine of baptismal regeneration'.

Karl Barth, in his book on Baptism, has also commented on this aspect of who should be baptised. He says, 'Baptism without the willingness and readiness of the baptised is true, effectual and effective baptism, but it is not correct; it is not done in obedience, it is not administered according to proper order, and therefore it is necessarily clouded baptism'. (p. 40-41) As a biblical scholar, Barth rejects infant baptism but as a churchman he supports it. It seems a strange logic.

Barth continues: 'The baptismal teaching prevalent today in all the great Christian confessions . . . in the Reformed church also--has in it at this point not a mere chink but a hole . . . neither by exegesis nor from the nature of the case can it be established that the baptised person can be a merely passive instrument. Rather it may be shown, by exegesis and from the nature of the case, that in this action the baptised is an active partner and that at whatever stage of life he may be, plainly no infant can be such a person.' He further says 'From the standpoint of a doctrine of baptism, infant baptism can hardly be preserved without exegetical and practical artifices and sophisms (specious arguments)-the proof to the contrary has yet to be supplied'. (p. 49)

Since this statement by Barth, there has been a vigorous debate among theologians concerning baptism. Some scholars (Cullmann, Jeremias), have claimed that there is evidence of, and authority for, infant baptism in the Gospels, but this has been rejected by most. (Aland, Beasley-Murray) Two things have emerged. First, scholars from churches practising infant baptism are stressing that infant baptism must not be seen apart from confirmation; that is, a personal confession of faith is an essential element of baptism.

Second, some leading scholars are rejecting infant baptism. Thus J. Moltmann writes: 'The way to a new, more authentic baptismal practice will be the way from infant to adult baptism. By adult baptism we mean the baptism of those who believe, are called, and confess their faith.' (The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 240)

So we can see that the practice of infant baptism is being seriously and

- 23 -

frankly challenged today by leading scholars in churches which practice it.

The purpose of baptism

The scriptural phrases are:

'. . . baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'. (Matthew 28:19)
'. . . baptised into Christ Jesus'. (Romans 6:3)
'. . . as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ'. (Galatians 3:27)

These passages make it clear that one ought not to be baptised into a particular denomination but as an act of commitment to Christ himself. Baptism is debased if it is used to put a denominational label on a person. Baptism links a person with Christ in a Master-servant relationship and through Him with the total church.

In Acts 2, Peter links baptism with forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit. In Titus, Paul speaks of the washing of regeneration. But it ought not to be inferred from these passages that baptism of itself saves. This is the heresy of baptismal regeneration. We are not saved by baptism but by Christ who died to redeem us.

Alexander Campbell, one of the founders of Churches of Christ says, 'The blood of Christ really cleanses us who believe . . . the water of baptism formally washes away sin'.

Principal Williams comments on this aspect. 'We cannot overemphasise the point that baptism is more than mere immersion in water. Churches of Christ have sought to preserve this truth by insisting upon faith and personal response, and stressing that baptism must always be understood as baptism "into Christ" . . . Immersion in water is simply the outer side of baptism . . . on the inner side baptism is death to self, burial in Christ and rising to walk in newness of life . . . Even with a mature person it is possible to have the outer without the inner, in which case the baptism is not complete or true'. (A Biblical Approach to Unity, p. 152)

In another place he writes, 'No Christian would hold that it is possible for one to be saved without the committal of trust and obedience which means death to self and burial--an inner rebirth. It is on this ground that we recognise as Christians those who have not observed the outward form of

- 24 -

baptism, or have observed it incorrectly according to our understanding of the New Testament, but whose lives bear witness to the inner side of baptism'. (Ibid. p. 153)

To discuss whether baptism is essential to salvation tends to degrade it to the level of a ticket to heaven and to miss its real significance. Jesus commanded it. We are baptised as an act of obedience. Jesus said, 'If you love me, keep my commandments'. But since some have accused us of saying that baptism is essential to salvation, we quote Principal Williams again. He says 'We do not speak of baptism as essential to salvation . . . neither do we presume to say that those who are not baptised are not saved'.

We prefer to speak positively. When a person has reached the age of responsible thought, and believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the world, and by an act of free choice becomes his disciple and is baptised by immersion into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as a symbol of the cleansing from sin and identification with Christ and his church, every Christian church will acknowledge this as scriptural and valid baptism. It is beyond dispute. It is the only baptism which is universally accepted and beyond dispute. Therefore this is the only form of baptism which is practised in Churches of Christ.

Baptism and church membership

Christian people who have been in membership in another denomination and are now worshipping with a Church of Christ congregation sometimes feel that our requirement of baptism according to the New Testament pattern as a condition of membership is an affront to their Christian standing. Let us look at this matter carefully and impartially.

First, we do not question the Christian status of such people. We accept them as Christian brethren because we believe that the personal response of repentance and faith, (new birth) is more important than the ritual which symbolises it. Therefore, when a person who has made this personal response to Jesus Christ comes to us we have no hesitation in accepting them as a Christian, even though their ritual baptism may be what Karl Barth calls 'clouded baptism'.

Second, we confuse each other by using the word 'baptism' in two entirely different ways for two entirely different ceremonies. The word 'baptism' can only be properly applied to the ceremony that is performed according to

- 25 -

the usage given in the New Testament. We question the use of the word for the 'Christening' of infants. If it can be properly said that infant christening is not Bible baptism, then does it not follow that those who have been christened only, have never been baptised in the scriptural sense? When we ask them to be immersed as an expression of their faith in Christ we are not rebaptising them; we are baptising them for the first time.

Third, because of the importance Jesus himself gave to baptism, we can never make it optional for those who profess to be his followers. Since we have no authority to change the manner in which it is administered or the persons who are fit candidates, it appears that it would be wrong for us to make the manner of its observance a matter of personal choice. Thus, we continue to require baptism according to the New Testament pattern for all who desire membership in our churches.

Fourth, if we were to alter this practice and admit to membership persons who have been christened only, we would create an anomaly which must result in acknowledging both forms as valid, and we should therefore administer both. In the light of the principle stated at the beginning of this article and the evidence brought forward, we would be most inconsistent if we acknowledged or practised christening. Could a church practice both infant christening and believer's baptism without being manifestly inconsistent?

Finally, in practice we have found that our stand on this matter has led many Christian people to give some serious thought and study to this subject for the first time. Those who have done so have often requested baptism and found it to be a most rewarding experience. It has meant a fresh surrender of themselves to Christ and been the beginning of a deeper spiritual experience.

Putting baptism and church membership in proper perspective

Discussing baptism in this way tends to give it a greater importance than is scripturally warranted. Let us get it back into biblical perspective. In doing so we will need to make value judgements about both baptism and church membership in the light of scripture. Much of the confusion on this matter has arisen because we fail to distinguish between three entirely different things which differ in both significance and value.

1. The new birth.
2. The Baptismal rite.
3. Local church rolls.

- 26 -

The new birth involves a change of heart and is of prime importance. Jesus said that it was essential for all who would enter the kingdom of God. It is something that God does for us when we come to him through his son, Jesus, with penitent and trusting hearts. He forgives our sins and imparts to us his Spirit, thus making us partakers of eternal life. It is this experience that makes us Christian.

The baptismal rite symbolises this new relationship. It has a derived value only being entirely dependent on the prior experience of the new birth, without which it has no significance whatsoever. Baptism declares to the world that the new birth is taking place. It is the sinner's signature on the covenant of salvation. Jesus did not say what connection it had with salvation but he did command that all his disciples should be baptised. While all Christians regard baptism as important, most would see it as of secondary importance when compared with the new birth.

A church membership roll is a humanly devised expedient without any scriptural authority. Church membership rolls were introduced in the interests of good organization. Those responsible for the spiritual oversight of God's people find a list of names a valuable aid. It is necessary to provide corporate responsibility for the purchase of property and the borrowing of money for church buildings. In past centuries, when doctrinal beliefs were considered the measure of a Christian, church rolls defined the faithful and made it possible to excommunicate heretics. Today, membership lists are only used for pastoral purposes and to decide who may decide matters of congregational policy.

Membership rolls have a utility value only; they do not pretend to decide who are Christians and who are not. In fact, the conditions of church membership differ so widely between denominations that whole denominations are excluded from membership of others by the conditions of membership, yet each regard the others as Christians. Perhaps we ought to leave the bookkeeping to God. Do we really need membership rolls? Are they fences that could be removed now that we know our neighbours better? In any case, let us see church membership for what it is; merely a human innovation that we find useful in the interests of good organisation.

Possible solutions. Once we have broken the 'Church membership = Christian' equation and recognised that the two are not necessarily synonymous, how important is the 'baptism-membership' issue? In actual practice, we recognise the Quakers

- 27 -

and members of the Salvation Army as Christians yet neither practice any form of baptism. In doing so, we give tacit recognition to the view that the new birth is the one thing that is really necessary to define a Christian.

In a similar way, we recognise as Christians members of those denominations which practice infant 'baptism'. Some Church of Christ congregations have given formal recognition to this by creating a 'Christians in Fellowship' roll in addition to their normal 'Christians in Membership' roll. Even where this is not done formally it is usual to recognise the Christian standing of all who by their lives and testimony show themselves to be Jesus' disciples. But we must not be unmindful that this liberal attitude presents a challenge to our witness to the biblical doctrine of baptism. We are confronted with two possibilities:

1. We can liberalise our membership requirements to include Christians from other denominations who have not, in our view, received baptism according to the scriptures. This would be the easy way out but it would do nothing to resolve the present confusion over baptism. In fact, it would increase it. Further, it would be ironic if Churches of Christ made the doctrine of baptism a matter of indifference, just at the time that some leading scholars of infant baptising churches, such as Moltmann, are arguing strongly for the doctrine of baptism we have always advocated.

2. We can show the relative unimportance of church roll membership by making the restrictions on nonmembers as small as possible and the opportunities for participation in worship and church activities as large as possible for those we recognise as Christians. The 'Christians in Fellowship' category is helpful here for ensuring that only persons who are committed Christians will be able to enter into active participation in the life of the church. This seems to be the course of action which is most consistent with Christian grace and biblical truth.

Baptism as an act of dedication

Argument over the age of the candidate and the method of baptism tends to destroy the beauty and sanctity of this ceremony by which the Christian is joined to his/her Lord and identified with the church. It is a sacred and solemn ceremony of consecration to which every Christian should be able to look back with sacred memory and which should remind them of the

- 28 -

wonder and permanence of their association with Christ.

When baptism is entered into by an act of personal choice, as an expression of a person's faith in Christ and repentance from all known sin, it becomes a deep spiritual experience. It marks a new beginning, a spiritual rebirth. This is true biblical baptism.

Addendum March 2001. Since this article was written in 1978 the breaking down of denominational barriers then in progress has increased due to the greater emphais on loyalty to the person of Jesus and discipleship to him and a lessening of the emphasis on doctrinal dogma. People select their places of worship on personal preference rather than historical denominational loyalties. As a result many of our congregations have only about half of their worshippers in actual membership. The contribution and commitment to Christ of these non-members is so real that many congregations now offer them full membership believing that such commitment is more important than the ritual of baptism that symbolises it.

 

- 29 -

3. Who are Churches of Christ?

AT THE BEGINNING of the nineteenth century, the Christian Church was sadly divided with little co-operation between the different denominations. As an example, the Rev. Thomas Campbell, a minister of a frontier church in America, invited other Christians to share in the quarterly communion service with his congregation as there was no other ordained minister in the district. He was censured by his superiors for admitting the members of other branches of his denomination, who differed on some points of doctrine, to the communion service in his church and was removed from office as a result.

He and others were distressed at this extreme example of the way in which divisions in the Christian church were separating the followers of Christ and they began to search for a basis on which Christians could work and worship together. Some ministers in the Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist denominations shared this concern. It became evident that the issues which divided Christians were rigid denominational creeds and church practices that were based on tradition but were without biblical authority. Thomas Campbell, and others of a more liberal Christian spirit, began to urge the churches to return to the New Testament as the only guide in matters of doctrine and church practice.

They reviewed their doctrines and practices in the light of the New Testament, seeking an express command or biblical precedent for all that they believed and practiced. Following this principle, they found it necessary to

- 30 -

abandon infant baptism due to lack of scriptural support and they commenced the baptism of believers instead. They sought a non- denominational name under which all Christians could unite. They rejected all humanly chosen names and decided to use only Christ's name as the universally acceptable name of the church.

Since creedal statements were only man's understanding of scriptural truths, and in practice had become a source of conflict and division, they decided that although a credal statement was a useful summary of Christian belief, it should not be made a test of orthodoxy or a basis of membership. Because of their efforts to restore the simplicity and purity of the New Testament teachings, they came to be known as a restoration movement.

They applied the same principle to the office of minister and discovered that the New Testament churches did not have a clergy class with exclusive sights to administer the sacraments but the disciples exercised a mutual ministry, each making a contribution to the worship according to their gifts and abilities. It became their custom to allow laymen to conduct the communion service. Many churches of Christ, including Red Hill, began by one family setting up the Lord's Table in their own home and inviting neighbours to join with them in remembering Christ's death and resurrection. Since special ministerial dress and titles were human innovations without New Testament authority, and tended to foster a separate clergy class, they were abandoned. Nevertheless, scholarship and training were highly valued and colleges were established to provide training and qualified leadership for the churches.

They searched the New Testament for a biblical pattern of church organisation. They found no evidence for a hierarchical type of church government. The early churches were independent congregations linked together only by their common beliefs and commitment to Jesus Christ, with both leaders and members conferring together to discuss and decide matters that affected them all. This was the ideal these reformers sought to restore. As their congregations multiplied, they met in annual conferences to plan evangelistic, missionary and educational activities, but decisions were not made binding on autonomous congregations.

Their zeal to be thoroughly biblical in everything was not just an end in itself but rather a means to achieve their original motivation of finding a scriptural basis on which all Christians could come together in worship and witness. They sought to emphasise the things that Christians held in common

- 31 -

and to discard the human innovations that were peculiar to the various denominations. Many were sympathetic to these ideals and the 'Restoration Movement' spread rapidly throughout America, ultimately becoming one of the mainline denominations. Their churches are variously called Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ or simply Christian Churches. In Australia they are known as Churches of Christ.

A similar movement arose independently in Britain where the emphasis was more on restoring the New Testament pattern of church life; the motivation towards unity was not felt so strongly. When these two similar movements on each side of the Atlantic discovered each other they exchanged literature and visits by the leaders developed a common identity so that they merged under the common name, Churches of Christ. It was from this British branch that Churches of Christ in Australia began. Some early Christian migrants brought this distinctive emphasis with them and established the 'Restoration Movement' in Australia. The first service in Victoria was held in the tent of one of the migrant families in the new suburb of Prahran, which was then springing up south of the Yarra.

The Australian Churches of Christ have continued the tradition established last century, but while they have maintained the original motivation, they have adapted to changing times seeking to be both biblical and relevant. They see the issues of our day as more important than the issues of the last century but their commitment to the restoration of the New Testament model of church life as a means to the unity of all Christians remains an important emphasis in these congregations. Their message and mode of worship is well suited to the Australian ethos and churches have spread throughout the cities, suburbs and country towns in all states. Churches of Christ acknowledge the Christian status of their fellow believers in other denominations and cooperate with them at the local level and through the Australian Council of Churches. They are grateful to God for the increased cooperation between the denominations in recent times and see this as a fulfilment of their original objective of working for a greater spirit of unity between Christians.

The following Mission Statement was rercently adopted at a conference of delegates from the churches and it presents the theological position and objectives of Churches of Christ in Australia today.

(a) VISION

To become a dynamic, relevant, Christian movement through a renewed emphasis on implementing New Testament Christianity in ways which make sense to contemporary Australians.

(b) MISSION STRATEGY

To achieve our vision of becoming a dynamic, relevant, Christian movement we need, under the Lordship of Christ and the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit, to implement in creative new ways the following aspects of the New Testament Christianity that make up the distinctive ethos of Churches of Christ:

Australian Churches of Christ maintain the usual denominational range of activities. A national journal called the Australian Christian is published fortnightly. Missionary projects have been established amongst our Aborigines and in India, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. Hospitals, nursing homes and villages for the aged have been established in most states. Three states

- 32 -

gave Bible colleges for the training of ministers and Christian leaders. Camping facilities and conference centres are available in all states. Churches of Christ have become one of the mainstream churches in Australia, making a significant contribution to the spiritual life of our nation.

 

- 33 -

4. What do we mean by Christian unity?

The following pamphlet is reprinted here because it expresses a point of view on the subject of Christian union which will always be relevant Since it was published by the Federal Literature Department as Pamphlet 357 in 1987, the constitution of the Victorian-Tasmanian Conference has been changed. The wording we objected to has been dropped and the word 'union' does not appear in the new constitution. The term 'Brotherhood', which we no longer use, was still acceptable when this article was written.

Our Christian Union policy is outdated

Our present policy is stated in the Victorian-Tasmanian constitution as being 'to work for the unity of Christians by the restoration of New Testament Christianity'. It further states that the Department of Christian Union and Ecumenical Affairs 'shall be entrusted with the work of furthering the interests of Christian union and advocating the restoration of New Testament Christianity as a divinely revealed foundation of unity'. This policy is out of date. It has not been changed since our churches began in 1809, in spite of the fact that the church scene has changed quite radically.

The wording is ambiguous. It uses the words 'unity and 'union' loosely, and apparently synonymously, ignoring their significantly different meanings. It is also inadequate. It does not define what is meant by either 'Christian

- 34 -

union' or 'New Testament Christianity. Failure to do this has caused much unnecessary discord within our Brotherhood.

An article in the Australian Christian asked the question, 'What does the unity we dream about look like?' This question, asked by a recognised Brotherhood leader, highlights our uncertainty and indicates that the question is open for discussion.

Since this matter is at the very heart of our reason for existence as a Brotherhood, it deserves our frank and honest consideration. As one who has given much thought to this matter, I submit this paper as my contribution to this on-going debate.

The biblical basis of unity

The principal scriptural basis is found in our Lord's prayer in John 17: vv 11; & 20-23. It is worth noting that Jesus did not use the words 'union' or 'unity but he prayed for oneness. He also defined oneness very carefully three times, so we are left in no doubt as to the nature of the oneness he had in mind. He prayed, 'That they may be one, even as we are one', 'That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.' And again, 'That they may be one, even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one'.

Jesus was obviously deeply concerned that all his disciples should maintain the same harmonious relationship amongst themselves which he always enjoyed with the Father. This relationship was so total and so intimate that he used the preposition 'in' to express it. 'Thou in me . . . I in thee 'they in us'. He prayed, 'May they be in us, just as you are in me, and I am in you'. Jesus wants his followers to have the same beautiful oneness of spirit he had with the Father. It was essentially a love bond. His final prayer was, 'That the love you have for me may be in them'. The oneness he desires for his church is a oneness in spirit; a loving harmony. As I reflect on the wording of this prayer and try to relate it to the statements in our constitution, and the ideas of unity and union current today, I cannot escape the feeling that we are thinking of a different kind of oneness from that which Jesus had in mind. I seriously question whether the modern idea of denominational mergers and organisational union is implicit in Jesus' words. It is possible to have the union which a Christian denomination provides, and which interdenominational structures extend, without experiencing

- 35 -

the oneness for which Jesus prayed. We have not always achieved that oneness within our own churches.

The Uniting Church of Australia did not achieve it by the long-worked-for union of three denominations. There was disillusionment, division and trauma during and following the merger. If denominational mergers are not necessarily implied by Jesus' words, and are shown in practice, not of themselves, to produce the quality of unity Jesus prayed for, should we consider removing this union objective from our agenda? Is this the ideal we want to set before our churches?

Unity is never attained, only maintained

The apostle Paul was also concerned to maintain a oneness between the disciples. He was shocked by the divisive spirit which developed in the church at Corinth when Christians began to give their loyalty to human leaders instead of to Jesus himself. He denounced this practice and called them back to Jesus as the only one to whom Christians should give their loyalty. To the church at Ephesus he wrote, 'I beg of you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, and eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace'.

Unity is a state of relationship between people which exists at a given time. It has to be maintained constantly. That is why Paul urges his readers to 'maintain the unity of the Spirit'. Unity is a level of relationship, nothing more. We have often thought of Christian unity as a state which is achievable, and once attained, it would become a permanent fact. Organisational mergers producing church union would do this but the unity of spirit that Jesus and Paul are concerned about is never finally attained. It must be maintained hourly and daily.

Unity is obligatory, union is optional

We have charged our Christian Union committee with the responsibility of 'furthering the interests of Christian union'. Is that our real objective? Is that what we really want? If so, we do not appear to have any strategy to achieve it and our present prospects appear minimal. Or are we just using words loosely?

Union and unity are two entirely different concepts. Jesus and Paul were concerned for the maintenance of harmonious relationships. That is unity.

- 36 -

Union means the uniting of two separate organizations. It specifically means he merging of two or more denominations into one organisation. This is apparently our objective. It is a worthy and valid objective in some circumstances.

The church today is split into many denominations, national churches, missionary and evangelistic societies and para-church organisations. It is obviously desirable to improve the cooperation and coordination of their activities as far as possible. It is wasteful and a bad witness to have branches of half-a-dozen denominations in a country town or suburb. But some divisions will always remain. Some doctrinal views are so diverse that they require separate services for their expression. Liturgical and free worship patterns will always require different services. Hierarchical and democratically governed churches, by their very nature, require separate organisations. Christian organisations with specific purposes such as the Bible Society, Leprosy Mission, World Vision and so on would also require independent status.

When you examine the present day Christian scene in detail you realise the impossibility of ever bringing all Christian work into one vast organisational union, even if that were desirable. When you limit the scope of our union objective to denominational churches in Australia it narrows the field considerably. I think that we can fairly say that the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Salvation Army are not likely possibilities for union with our churches due to their hierarchical type of government and their doctrinal and worship differences. I feel that Lutherans have too strong a tradition to be interested in union. Many of our members would not be comfortable contemplating union with Pentecostal-type congregations. The infant baptism practice of the Uniting church and the Presbyterians still poses major difficulty to unite with them.

The Baptist and Brethren groups are independent autonomous congregations working in a loosely knit organisation; they have not manifested any desire for union with others. Each of their congregations, and ours, would have to vote separately on a union proposal and this would result in division within each congregation, and within the group as a whole. It would produce division, not unity.

If we are pledged to work for Christian union, with whom are we hopeful of uniting?

We are not courting anyone at present. We seem to have arrived at spinster status. I submit that the objective of church union is not the kind of oneness Jesus had in mind; it is of questionable value and is a rather remote

- 37 -

possibility. It is important to observe a priority and value rating between unity and union. Unity is obligatory. We are commanded to love one another. Union is optional.

The maintenance of the spirit of unity within the whole company of believers is absolutely top priority. Church union has a utility value only. Unity is in the area of the spirit. Union is in the area of organisation. Union would not necessarily produce unity but unity may produce union in some circumstances. I have the feeling that many in our churches would feel happier if we dropped the objective of church union, without rejecting it in principle, and remained totally committed to work for Christian unity within our own ranks and with Christians of other churches.

'New Testament Christianity'

The other phrase in the constitution which needs defining is 'New Testament Christianity'. We have acted as though the rediscovery of New Testament Christianity ended with our founding fathers, the Campbells. We speak as though we have defined it once and for all. This belief that we had found the truth gave us a sense of mission. But other churches did not take us seriously because they also believed that they were practicing New Testament Christianity.

This term means nothing unless defined and this takes us into the realm of interpretation. We appealed to the consensus of qualified scholarship for an authoritative interpretation but this is never unanimous. Christians are not free from prejudice, and when established beliefs and traditions are challenged by a different interpretation tradition usually wins. The question of determining the exact nature of New Testament Christianity is one that will never be finally and unanimously decided. So all we can claim to be restoring is our understanding of New Testament Christianity. This leaves us without a commonly agreed doctrinal basis for union.

'New Testament Christianity' redefined

No neatly formulated definition could never encompass the fullness of the gospel, but in recent decades our limited definition has been openly challenged by others who claim that they are presenting the full gospel. Their message includes aspects of New Testament life and teaching which we have ignored, and the disturbing aspect for us, is that they have New Testament

- 38 -

authority and precedent for their claims. I have come to feel that it is presumptuous of us to claim that we have discovered genuine New Testament Christianity and want others to use it as a basis for unity. But there is a basis for Christian unity on which all Christians agree and to which their loyalty is already strongly committed. It is the only basis which will ever be acceptable to Christians of all traditions. It is the person of Jesus himself. In him we are one. In him we find unity.

We are already one in Christ

Any person who has given their heart's loyalty to Jesus is our brother or sister in Christ. This unity does not have to be worked for, it already exists. We only need to acknowledge it and express it. All who honour Jesus as Lord and Saviour are equally accepted by him despite differences in beliefs, rituals and forms of worship. We cannot reject those whom Jesus accepts. We must accept our brethren in all the churches as brethren in Christ. We must love and respect them irrespective of their doctrinal differences.

This does not mean that we regard right belief as unimportant but only that we refuse to allow our different traditions to separate us in attitude and spirit. Members of Churches of Christ are not alone in their failure to recognise this, but let us be honest and admit that there is a degree of antipathy and prejudice within our churches. We sometimes hear derogatory remarks about those who differ from us. Can we honestly say that there is no prejudice in Churches of Christ against Catholics and Charismatics? The first step towards the unity of spirit for which Jesus prayed is to accept all who claim to be disciples of Jesus as our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Jesus had to remove prejudices from Peter's heart before he would accept Cornelius whom God had already accepted. We still need to hear the voice of the Lord saying 'That which God hath cleansed call not thou common or unclean'. What is our action saying to other Christians when we refuse to accept them into membership in our churches? How can we speak of unity without being hypocritical when we close our membership to only those who accept our point of view?

Membership rolls are not even part of New Testament Christianity. They are a humanly devised expedient; a fence that encloses those who share our views and that excludes other Christians and nonbelievers. We are afraid that the pure New Testament teaching, as we understand it, will be corrupted. It

- 39 -

is an anomaly to acknowledge that other Christians are members of Christ's church but they are unfit to belong to ours, and so we refuse them membership, sometimes even at the partial level of Christians in Fellowship.

I have one reservation here. Church membership in other communions covers a wide range of belief and lifestyle and this could create big problems requiring both tolerance and teaching. It would need to be countered by specific teaching about our beliefs prior to their acceptance into membership and firm adherence to the scriptural model in the life of the congregation. In any case, both these controls should be part of normal church practice. Compromise and error only flourish where there is weak leadership.

This rejection of others has come about because we have made doctrine the focus of our loyalty instead of the person of Jesus. When we give the Lord Jesus Christ the rightful place in our loyalty we will achieve the unity of spirit he so earnestly desires. This leads me to the rather heretical conclusion that the Campbells made a fundamental mistake when they made unity dependent on doctrine. Their stated aim was 'to work for the unity of Christians by the restoration of New Testament Christianity'. New Testament Christianity, which is doctrine, is in the realm of the mind and intellect. Unity is in the realm of the spirit; it concerns feelings and loyalties. These are quite separate realms that are not necessarily linked in a causative way. A beautiful unity is possible without doctrinal agreement because of our common loyalty to Jesus.

On the other hand, doctrinal agreement does not guarantee unity. I believe we have found unity impossible to achieve on the basis of the Campbell's proposition because it is a false premise. We must always work for both the ideals of unity and New Testament Christianity set out in the proposition but, to link them together in a cause and effect relationship, is no longer valid for me. Our stated purpose needs reviewing and our objective needs rephrasing.

The contemporary situation

I find it hard to believe that we are really serious about church union proposals. Churches of Christ have settled into a normal denominational lifestyle. There is no groundswell of interest in our churches or evident desire to enter into union negotiations. The fact that our Federal College in Melbourne recently built a costly new College Campus is a good indication that we are

- 40 -

not considering demolishing our Brotherhood life to unite with others. So if we are not contemplating union, what do we mean when we charge our Christian union committee with 'the work of furthering the interests of Christian union'? How do the members of the committee understand their task?

Two significant worldwide movements have come into being in recent times and both are contributing towards unity amongst Christians. The first is the World Council of Churches in which the churches have acknowledged that the one factor which binds them all together is their recognition of Jesus as Lord and Saviour. The World Council of Churches is not a super-church but a fellowship of independent churches, recognising each other's validity, and cooperating together to fulfil the mission Jesus gave to his church.

The second movement, broadly called the Charismatic movement, grew out of a spiritual renewal initiated by the Holy Spirit. This spiritual renewal has been worldwide and has influenced members of all churches. A major effect has been the sweeping aside of former prejudices and a sharing together in which members of all churches have experienced a new sense of acceptance and love. This spiritual oneness in Christ has become for many a beautiful living experience. Because of our long-standing commitment to Christian union it is encouraging to us to see these new unifying forces at work in the church today.

Both these movements have one thing in common which has caused them to succeed where we failed. They both disregard doctrine as a basis for interchurch relationships and, instead, both make devotion to Jesus Christ the only basis of their fellowship. This emphasis on the commonality of their loyalty has had a strong unifying effect, especially where it has been expressed in worship as in the charismatic conventions, or in both worship and joint action as in the World Council programs. To speak about 'Our Plea' in this context is to strike a discordant note. 'Our Plea has become a Linus blanket' that we are reluctant to discard, yet it no longer serves a useful purpose.

Some have strongly opposed both these movements and this has tended to produce division within our ranks. Surely anything that contributes to a greater oneness and unity amongst the Lord's people is in line with Jesus' fervent prayer. We recognise that truth never exists in a pure form, and it is proper to oppose elements of error within these movements, but to oppose them totally, thus fostering division within the churches, could be to oppose the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the reactionaries amongst us who ferment a

- 41 -

spirit of division. I am reminded of Jesus' comment to the Pharisees who were opposed to both John the Baptist's ministry and his own; He said, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn. Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds'.

Churches of Christ have an important role

Some have felt that, as a Brotherhood, we need to have some unique contribution to make to justify our separate existence. Why should this be so? While the concept of restoring unity to the church was always part of our motivation, it was never our major mission. Surely the prime motivation of every minister and congregation must be to make the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ known to all in the community. This is still our primary mission. We are part of the total church's witness in our generation, working supportively with our brethren in other churches. I feel that the less unique our message is, the better. Our lack of uniqueness gives us greater chance of unity and perhaps ultimate union with at least some similar denomination. The contribution of Churches of Christ is a significant part of the total Christian witness in Australia which, I am sure, is of great value in the eyes of the Lord.

If we are serious about fostering the spirit of unity between the churches there are at least three positive lines along which we should be working:

1. Mutual acceptance

We should teach our members to acknowledge the Christian standing of all who accept Jesus as Saviour and Lord, irrespective of their denominational affiliation. The antipathies and prejudices of our own members often hinder the flow of Christian love. Christian unity must begin with ourselves.

2. Cooperation

We should be prepared to take the initiative in working in a team relationship with the other churches in our town or suburb and cooperate in every way to further the cause of Christ in our community.

3. Combined worship

Combined times of worship, including inspirational and evangelistic services, are of prime importance in developing a spirit of oneness and

- 42 -

unity at the local level. We will never get together until we worship the Lord together in each other's churches, using each other's form of worship. We must begin at the level of our hearts, not our heads, and as we worship the Lord together, mingling our hearts and voices in praise and worship, rejoicing in each others' victories, and standing with each other in times of difficulty, we will find our differences of diminished importance in the greatness of our common task.

 

- 43 -

5. Which sexual relationships are OK?

It is the duty of Christian leaders to inform their people about the biblical teaching in regard to marriage, divorce, premarital sex, de facto relationships and homosexuality. This article covers these subjects from a biblical viewpoint.

PROBABLY THE GREATEST change in social behaviour during this century has been in the area of sexual relationships. Casual premarital sex has become normal behaviour; temporary de facto liaisons by young couples and by divorcees are also accepted behaviour. A third of our nation's families have experienced divorce, condoms have replaced chocolate as a popular vending machine item, prostitution has become a legalised 'industry', homosexual behaviour has become legal and is aggressively promoted and celebrated, pornography has become a million dollar business and AIDS has become a major medical problem. It is not surprising that the quality of family life and personal happiness has significantly diminished.

Sex, love and responsibility should always go together but love and responsibility are often separated from sex, leaving physical gratification as the only element in most casual encounters. Sex alone does not bring happiness, so the normal hunger for a meaningful intimate relationship, which used to be found in marriage, has found expression in less secure, short-term relationships where insecure children often leave home and become a potential

- 44 -

pool for drugs and crime. How can we come to terms with these new social patterns?

The changes have been confusing for most people but especially so for Christians as they have seen their Christian standards disregarded and swept aside. It is important for Christian leaders to give their people guidance on these moral issues. In doing so, it must be clearly understood that they are stating the biblical teaching that applies to Christians and they are not seeking to impose their Christian standards on the whole community.

When Christians agitate to have biblical morality made legally binding in the whole community, as has occurred in the abortion debate, they are Wing beyond their mission.

Jesus never encouraged his followers to bring in the kingdom of God by legislation. We are obliged to uphold Christian morality by our example and to promote it in public discussion, but that is as far as we can go. Christian discipleship is voluntary and Christian morality must be self-imposed. In presenting the biblical position on sexual relationships, we are addressing ourselves to Christians and to all who desire to live by the morality of the Bible.

As we turn to the Bible for guidance, we must keep in mind the different approach to morality between the Old and New Testaments. First, in the Old testament, the nation of Israel was bound to God by a covenant which applied to everyone in the nation so every Israelite was obliged to observe the Mosaic code of behaviour. The teachings of Jesus are for all nations, but only those who are his disciples are obliged to observe them.

Second, the ethics of Judaism were presented in the form of laws which sharply defined right and wrong. Jesus did not impose any laws on his disciples, but taught ideals and principles which have to be applied to particular situations. Many Christians still think in sharply defined right and wrong concepts; they classify an action as sinful or not sinful. For example, Catholics have classified the use of contraceptives and divorce as sinful, therefore forbidden. Protestants would see both of these as contrary to God's original intention but would recognise that we live in an imperfect society and there are circumstances where we have to make a value judgement and take action that falls short of God's ideal. It is often not a choice between right and wrong but of choosing the lesser of two evils.

Nevertheless, God does not change his moral standards; it is only the

- 45 -

form in which they are presented that differs in the two testaments. The Old Testament is therefore still important in determining Christian morality. With these things in mind we are now ready to look at the concept of biblical marriage and at particular areas of deviation from the biblical standard.

Premarital sex:

The law of Moses forbade premarital sex. If a bride could not prove her virginity she was to be stoned to death. If a man raped a virgin and they were caught he was obliged to marry her because he had violated her; their physical bonding made their relationship permanent, so it had to be formalised by marriage. (Deut. 22) Fornication, which covers all forms of unchastity, including premarital sex, is always condemned in the New Testament. The only form of sexual intercourse approved in the Bible is within the married state. The prohibition against premarital sex applies to men as well as to women.

In chapter 8 of John's gospel, we have the story of how the Pharisees confronted Jesus with a woman caught in adultery and asked him to pass judgement. He refused to deal with the case on the legal level and in so doing made it clear that his approach was different from the sin and punishment pattern of the Mosaic law. In declining to condemn her, he virtually forgave her, but told her not to sin again. Jesus upheld the standards but not the penalties of Moses' law.

Marriage:

Marriage is presented in both Old and New Testaments as the normal acceptable sexual relationship. Marriage is seen as a whole-of-life commitment to one person that excludes sexual intercourse with all others. The sanctity of the marriage bond was considered important enough to have a place in the ten commandments. Jesus endorsed marriage as a lifelong commitment saying, 'What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder'. (Matt. 19)

The permanence of the marriage bond provides security so that children can grow up in a safe and loving environment with both parents to nurture them. The words that evoke some of the deepest feelings in us all are home, mother, father, husband, wife, sister, brother. We should make every effort to see that no child is denied these precious memories of a happy, loving home life.

- 46 -

De facto relationships:

When young people or divorcees live together without the commitment of a formal marriage they are rejecting God's plan for their life and subjecting both themselves and their children to emotional insecurity. Many de facto liaisons are a matter of convenience and lack the love and commitment that are so necessary for a happy home life. When they do not last, the break-up results in emotional trauma, a lowered self-image and increased feelings of insecurity for all concerned. The search for a companion has to start all over again. It is a high price to pay for freedom from the responsibilities that marriage brings. Once we open the door to a sexual relationship without commitment and responsibility we are on the path to social mayhem.

Divorce:

In Deut. 24:1-4 we have the Mosaic statement on divorce but it is ambiguous. The Rabbis of Jesus' day did not agree on the grounds for divorce stated in this passage. Some focused on the word translated 'uncleanness' saying that adultery was the only permissible ground. Others stressed the words 'if she find no favour in his eyes', interpreting it to mean that a husband could divorce his wife for almost any reason. They asked Jesus for his understanding of the passage. (Matt. 19)

Jesus did not treat the matter on a legal basis but went behind the Mosaic law to God's original intention and ideal for marriage. He said, 'They are no longer two, but one. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate'. This showed that there was conflict between what God intended and what the law of Moses allowed and they wanted to know why. Jesus replied, 'For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so'.

His reply showed that God intended marriage to be permanent. But he made an important exception. A wife could be sent away if she was found guilty of adultery. When a third party entered the marriage union it became polygamy and the innocent member was not required to be part of this triangular relationship. The churches have traditionally based their view of divorce on Jesus' teaching in this passage, making adultery the only acceptable ground for marriage dissolution.

- 47 -

As church allegiance has weakened this century, the break-up of marriages has increased and the civil law has been changed introducing 'no fault' divorce with separation being the only requirement for a divorce. It takes two to make a marriage but only one to dissolve it. Also, both partners have equal rights before the law; wives can divorce their husbands and often do. This has affected Christian marriages and many Christians have been divorced on grounds other than adultery and have remarried with their church's approval. Is this scripturally justified?

It depends on whether we look at the issue legally or really. Every church acknowledges that the permanence of the marriage bond is God's intention and the Christian ideal. But in real life some marriages degenerate into conflict, unhappiness and even violence. When a wife feels that she is trapped in a loveless marriage that is nothing but work, responsibility and argument she sometimes sees separation as the only alternative. It is not hard to understand why God permitted Moses to include divorce in the Mosaic law code.

A marriage where both partners are Christians can also become a soul destroying bondage that is preserved only to avoid the shame of divorce. If living together becomes intolerable, separation or divorce become the only options. Paul discusses separation as an option in 1 Cor 7. A marriage that has broken down to the extent that it is no longer a spiritual union of hearts and minds but is held together only by the terms of a civil contract no longer conforms to the Christian ideal. Something must be done.

Separation and divorce should be a last resort. Outside help is needed and one, or preferably both partners, should seek the help of a qualified Christian marriage counsellor.

Especially when there are young children, every effort should be made to restore a happy working relationship. If the spiritual life of the partners and their commitment to Christ can be deepened, many a marriage can be renewed and become a joy again. It is often not until a marriage breaks up that the partners realise how much they have lost by dissolving their family life. They should remember that there was a time when they enjoyed each other's company so much that they decided to get married. A marriage should never be abandoned until every effort to make it work has been tried and failed.

- 48 -

Most Christians now feel that if no improvement can be achieved by these efforts, and a marriage has become so far removed from God's intention and the Christian ideal it can be dissolved. As in Moses' day, divorce is permitted but not approved. There will be a deep sense of failure and emotional distress at the breaking of the family bonds, but if it has to be so, let it be done without bitterness or recrimination. Moses was a realist when he allowed divorce which he knew was never God's intention. Jesus upheld God's original ideal but he did not say that Moses had done wrong by introducing regulations for divorce.

Celibacy:

This is an option which some men and women have chosen for themselves and, although they may have missed the joys, responsibilities and problems of family life, they enjoy the total freedom of action a single person has and many live fulfilled, happy lives. Jesus and Paul both chose the single life because of the special ministries to which God had called them. Jesus and Paul both mention this as an option. (See Matt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7)

Pornography:

This word entered our language this century from the Greek word porneia. The Bible translates it fornication, which includes every form of lust and unchastity. Pornography literally means any printed, drawn or photographic material that incites lust. In his sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that adultery was not only an act but also a state of mind. (Matt. 5:27-30) God requires purity of mind as well as behaviour.

If a person feels lust by looking at pictures that stimulate a desire for sex, they will feel a strong urge to give their feelings expression, and casual sex, extramarital affairs, forced sex within marriage or even rape, are the possible result. A Christian man learns to avoid this unhealthy obsession with sex by refusing to indulge his natural inclination in this way. The problem is as old as human nature. The patriarch Job gives us some good advice. He said, 'I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl'. (Job 31:1) Christian men need to make a covenant with their eyes not to stir up lust by using pornographic literature. Paul deals with the question of our thought- life positively. He says, 'Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is

- 49 -

pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, think about these things'. (Phil. 4:8)

Prostitution:

This practice is more a condemnation of men than of women. It is sad that it is so widespread and that women should be debased in this way. Many women in third world countries are forced into this practice by the terrible poverty under which they and their families live. It is tragic that men from more affluent societies take advantage of their circumstances. In western society some girls voluntarily adopt this role for the easy money and glamorous life it appears to offer. It demonstrates how far our modern society has deviated from the Christian ideal. It is universally condemned so there is really no need to add that no Christian woman or man should participate in this practice.

Homosexuality:

The biblical name for homosexuality is sodomy. This is because the first reference in biblical history to the practice concerned the men of the city of Sodom who sought to have intercourse with the two angels who visited the city in the form of men. This incident is recorded in Genesis 19. In the Authorised version (AV) and Revised Standard Version (RSV), the term used for sexual intercourse in the Old Testament is 'to know'. The New International Version (NIV) gives the meaning more explicitly; it says, 'so that we can have sex with them'.

Homosexual relationships are expressly forbidden in the law of Moses. Leviticus 18:22 says, 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable'. (See also 20:13) Deuteronomy 23:17-18 says, 'No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute (the Hebrew word here is 'dog') into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both'. Apparently the disgust people felt about the unnatural practice of male sex had led them to associate it with the behaviour of street dogs. They despised homosexuals as much as they despised the copulating street dogs of their towns.

Male and female prostitution was always part of pagan religious rituals. God called it a detestable practice and Israel's rulers tried to stamp

- 50 -

it out. Chapter fourteen in the first book of Kings lists the sins of the people of Judah in the days of King Rehoboam adding, 'There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations'. Chapters 15 and 22 tell us that Rehoboam's successors, Asa and Jehosophat, both expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land but in 2 Kings 23:7 we find the practice still persisting so King Josiah 'tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes which were in the temple of the Lord'.

The use of the name 'dog' for a homosexual male also appears to be the meaning in Revelation 22:15 which states that dogs will be excluded from the holy city. Why would any animal be specially mentioned as being excluded and why single out dogs? If we take it literally we must assume that all other animals, except dogs, are to be included in the kingdom of God. It is obviously a figurative use of the word and its earlier use as a synonym for homosexuals suggests that is the meaning here.

In Romans 1:26-30, Paul refers specifically to the homosexual practice which was common among pagans in his day. He says, 'Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men'. Paul calls homosexual acts shameful, and says, 'God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done'. The practice is everywhere condemned in scripture because it is unnatural and a perversion of the natural practice of sex.

The first book of Corinthians, chapter six, verse nine, lists homosexual behaviour among other commonly known sins and states that all who practice these things will not inherit the kingdom of God. It adds, 'And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God'. So former homosexuals were in the church at Corinth but practicing homosexuals were condemned.

In 1 Timothy 1:10, we have another list which states that the law was given for the disobedient, the ungodly, and the profane, including 'murderers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine'. In these three occasions

- 51 -

in Paul's letters and once in John's writings, we have homosexuality included in the lists of sins which God disapproves and for which men are excluded from the kingdom of God.

So both Old and New Testaments agree in denouncing the pagan practice of homosexual behaviour. God gave explicit commands to the Jewish people on the issue and they are still valid for Christians today as God does not change his mind on moral issues. Jesus commissioned Paul to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentile nations and he fully instructed him by his Spirit in the standard of behaviour expected of his disciples. Those who regard themselves as Christians are expected to conform to these standards.

Even if we disregard altogether the biblical attitude to copulating males, there is still the fact that it is a perversion of the body's natural function. The purpose of sex is for the reproduction of the next generation and that purpose cannot be fulfilled unless it is the union of a male and female of the species. Homosexuals are not normal in their behaviour, they will always be considered perverts, even if the term conveys no moral overtones.

Some have suggested that homosexuality is inherent in the genes but this has not been proved. There are some rare cases of mixed sexuality such as the Australian who began life as Jean Webb who was born with an extra chromosome giving her an XXY gene combination. The staff worker at the London clinic for sexual deviation where her case was examined said, 'Out of 5,000 cases a year we might get one, one only, who is a genuine enough case to warrant further extensive investigation and treatment'. But even with her mixed sex genes she did not become a homosexual. She changed her sex and became Peter Stirling.

In addition to its purpose of procreation, sex becomes a means of sustaining and strengthening the emotional bond between a husband and wife and maintaining the solidarity of the family. It is regrettable that humans are so prone to indulge their love of pleasure that many have thrown off the divinely given restraints on sexual relationships and turned this God-given faculty into one of the major problem areas of the human race.

It is necessary to emphasise that the biblical passages we have looked at present only the biblical view of homosexuality. They cannot be

- 52 -

applied generally to today's society. Christians cannot tell non-Christians how they ought to live; they can only present what the Bible teaches on this and any other subject. We live in a pluralistic society, and while Christians may deplore the practice and acceptance of homosexuality, we can only live by our own standards and allow others to live by theirs. The 'Gay' community has made a bold bid for acceptance, even flaunting and celebrating their way of life. They have been successful in having their behaviour decriminalised and have won a tolerant acceptance in the community, but we doubt if they will ever win widespread respect.

Maintaining the ideal

Physical attraction is inadequate for a deeply satisfying relationship between the sexes. There needs to be also a spiritual union and deeply felt love bond. The normal demands of life crowd our time, empty our purse and put pressure on the most deeply devoted couple. We have to work at maintaining the initial romantic love with which we began the marriage. We do not have space to go into detail here. It would be helpful for every couple to read some recommended books that are available from Christian bookshops or Marriage Guidance Council offices. Churches run Marriage Enrichment weekends periodically. They are a good investment.

Husbands and wives need planned time together as well as daily planned time with children whenever possible. Unless we include such time in our priorities, these things get crowded out and our family life deteriorates. Husbands and wives must communicate openly and honestly with each other, especially in the area of feelings, and it is most important to listen to what our partner is saying in either words or body language and take some corrective action. Periodic disagreements are normal but heated arguments are destructive and should be avoided if at all possible. The words of Proverbs 17:14 are important for the maintenance of a harmonious family life. 'Starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out.'

If at times we find it hard to love our partner, let us remember that God still loves them and we should pray that God will let his love flow to them through us. There is nothing so fulfilling and satisfying on

- 53 -

this earth as a loving marriage and a happy home life and it is worth every effort to maintain it.

 

- 54 -

6. Should Christians drink alcohol?

A decision every young person must make.

This article was first published by the Federal Literature Committee of Churches of Christ in 1977 as Pamphlet 266 and was later distributed to all Ministers in Victoria by the Temperance Alliance. It is now out of print.

IT WOULD BE pointless to offer a 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question because it is a decision every person must make for themselves. But, as one who knows more about alcohol and its effects than most young people, I feel that I have a responsibility to publish this information so that the young person who is offered an alcoholic drink will know what effect it will have on their body and be aware of its long-term physical and often tragic social effects.

Several years ago, the world was shocked by the birth of imperfectly formed babies. Some had no hands or other limbs and the distraught parents and the medical profession cooperated to discover the cause. It was traced to the use of the drug thalidomide taken during pregnancy. The public was angry that a drug which was so harmful should have been made available to the public and the company which produced and sold it was sued for millions of dollars. The company was, of course, unaware that it would have such harmful

- 55 -

effects and immediately withdrew it from sale.

Another drug, ethyl alcohol, is currently sold in Australia, which is far more dangerous in its total effects yet it is approved by both the public and the government. It is not taken on its own, like other drugs, but is the active element in beer, wines and spirits. It is a time bomb with a long fuse. Its effects are not immediately apparent as was the case with thalidomide. It does not deform the body but when taken in excess, progressively destroys both the body and the personality. Its social and economic damage is enormous and the widespread human suffering it causes is beyond computation.

Most people are not aware of the real nature and effects of alcohol, but those who do know cannot view with complacence the fact that each year thousands of young people innocently begin using this drug as a beverage. This article seeks to present the facts so that they can make a more informed decision. Every young person has to make a decision about social drinking because they will certainly be offered a drink and if they decline they will be asked why they don't drink.

School children and alcohol use

The Research Branch of the Department of Education of Queensland released a report in 1976 which showed that of over 3,000 secondary school children surveyed 83% were using alcoholic drinks by the time they reached the sixth form (Year 12) and only 2.7% regarded alcohol as dangerous to their health. Most students who drink begin doing so at home, in the company of their parents, before they reach their twelfth birthday. The main reason given for drinking was that it enabled them to mix more easily and be relaxed and happy with their peer group. The student's peer group exerts the major influence on their attitudes and behaviour. The next strongest factor that encouraged them to commence using alcohol was that they did not regard alcohol as harmful.

A similar survey in NSW in 1973, showed that as many as 3.6% of male school students aged sixteen or more were 'problem users'. The most striking and alarming change in drinking patterns in recent years is the increased use of alcohol by young girls. Surveys show that female students using alcohol at least once a week doubled between 1969 and 1973. Again, the young people in the groups surveyed did not show any awareness of the dangers of alcohol. Somebody has to tell them.

- 56 -

The nature of alcohol and its effect on the body

Alcohol is a narcotic. That is, it induces sleep, stupor and insensibility. It is a depressant drug which has a tranquillising effect so that as little as two drinks of beer, wine or spirits will show an anaesthetising effect upon the brain. After five glasses the effect is so marked that it is unsafe and therefore illegal to drive a car.

Alcohol is also a poison and, as such, is widely used by the medical profession to kill germs. A quick dab of meths. (which is 99% alcohol) before an injection, instantly kills any harmful bacteria and so prevents infection. The excessive use of alcohol as a beverage gradually poisons the body, destroying brain cells and causing serious harm to bodily organs. It is estimated that one in three persons admitted to mental hospitals in Australia have conditions related to alcohol damage.

Alcohol is not a food. It contains no proteins, minerals or vitamins. It does not build or repair body tissue. It does contain calories but they can only be burned in the body to produce heat. It is an excellent fuel. It was recently stated in connection with the energy crisis that the most efficient form of solar energy would be to grow sugar cane, which could then be used to produce alcohol for fuel. We all know how readily methylated spirit burns and how the alcohol in wine burns when poured over food and lit. So alcohol is a drug, a poison and a fuel. Alcohol users are drug users. The police and the medical profession rate alcohol as one of the most dangerous drugs in use in Australia because of its incidence and its harmful physical and social effects.

But what makes alcohol doubly harmful is that it has an addictive factor common to many drugs. About one in twenty social drinkers become addicted after years of regular use. This addiction also affects the professional and executive class and is not related to willpower. It is a fact that around 300,000 Australians can no longer control their drinking and every alcoholic affects, on an average, four other closely associated people. This means that about 1,200,000, or approximately 10% of Australians are adversely affected by the abuse of this socially acceptable drug.

The finding of the Study Group of the Victorian Foundation on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (1974) concluded its chapter on 'Education to Combat Drug Abuse' with this forthright statement: 'Today we have in our Australian Community perhaps half a million or more people who are, at best, existing in a twilight zone of unhappiness and emptiness and at worst,

- 57 -

are waiting for death in a vegetable state brought about by irreparable brain damage caused by alcohol abuse. We must make every effort that we can to prevent the young people of tomorrow from joining them.' When a statement like that comes from leading doctors, pharmacists, psychologists, and social workers of Melbourne, it is time our young people thought twice about accepting a social drink.

The drug alcohol is Australia's No. 1 social problem

Here is the evidence. Dr J.H. Birrell, former Victorian Police Surgeon said, 'In 1968, 1750 people were killed on our roads because of alcohol. Of 100 murder cases investigated 50 were due to alcohol'. Mr J. Loomes, former City Coroner stated, 'Alcohol is to blame in at least 75% of motor car accidents today'. Dr D. N. Everingham, former Australian Minister for Health said, 'One in five drownings, one in five battered children, two in five divorces and judicial separations, half the road toll and almost half the serious crimes in Australia are a result of alcohol consumption. One man in every twenty and one woman in every hundred can no longer use alcohol rationally. Alcohol effects cost the community $1,000 million dollars each year ($3 million a day) in lost production, absenteeism and heavy demands on hospitals and health services'.

Dr Bartholomew, Psychiatrist, stated that 43.4% of Pentridge Gaol inmates were problem alcoholics. Dr J. N. Santamaria of St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, stated, 'When one comes to look at the pattern of drug dependence in Australia, we find that the most important single drug to be abused is alcohol. In Australia it has been estimated that about 250,000 people are dependent on this substance. When one speaks of drugs of dependence, we are referring to those drugs which act on the nervous system, affecting mood, behaviour and perception. The most important drugs in this group in our Australian community belong to the depressant group, and the most important single one is alcohol'. Dr Milner, Director of the Alcohol and Drug Dependence Services Branch of the Victorian Department of Health in 1974 said bluntly, 'Australians are drowning in a sea of grog'.

It is time that alcohol was stripped of its respectability and the glamour image given to it by advertisers, and revealed for what it really is, a dangerous drug which does far greater harm in our society than thalidomide ever did.

- 58 -

Why do people drink?

There are many reasons, but one of the major reasons for young people commencing to drink socially is the acceptance which the majority in the community give to this drug. In short, they drink because older people set them an example. When the Governor General, the Prime Minister, politicians and business executives, teachers, parents and some Christians drink, why shouldn't the young people in our schools follow their example? Drinking, especially wine, is a status symbol of maturity and sophistication so that a young person has to have very good reasons to refuse a drink. All people, especially teenagers, are eager for acceptance and don't like to be thought different from their peers so they drink to be in with the group.

Drinks are generally offered at parties or in pleasant surroundings by courteous and probably charming companions who show none of the bad effects mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Everybody else seems to be drinking and we do not like to be the only one refusing so we take our first social drink and suffer no ill effects. But from then on it is only a question of how often and how much. It would help young people to remember that about one in every five people are nondrinkers and there are probably some at every party and function who will ask for fruit juices, lemon squash or nonalcoholic cider. The nonalcoholic wines are excellent drinks.

Many accept drinks because they do not know how dangerous alcohol is or how potent a particular drink is. It is helpful to know that the normal serve of most drinks contains about 28 ml. (1 oz.) of alcohol. Drinks which contain higher percentages of alcohol are served in smaller glasses. Normal strength beer contains approximately 5% alcohol, natural wines such as claret are about 13%, fortified wines such as sherry or port up to 20%, while spirits such as whisky, gin or vodka are around 40% alcohol or higher. Five glasses of any of these drinks taken within an hour will produce a blood alcohol content of 0.5% in the average mature man and probably only half that amount drunk by women or young people will produce the same result. Women metabolize alcohol slower than men and the lower body weight of young people affects alcohol levels.

At a party, drinks are often not served in the carefully measured amounts that tradition formerly followed, so a glass of wine may be several times more potent than the traditional wineglass. It is easy to see how young people who are not aware of the alcoholic content of the drinks they are offered can easily drink too much at a party, leaving themselves morally vulnerable or unfit to

- 59 -

drive themselves and their friends home.

The insidious nature of alcohol comes from its drug characteristics. After one or two glasses the mental perception is dulled and the judgement affected so that a person is not competent to assess their real condition. They feel great and see no reason to refuse further drinks. Most young people who drink socially know that alcohol is potentially dangerous, but they believe that they can handle it. They believe that they will never become addicted but they forget that there are a quarter of a million people in Australia who were equally confident but are now hopelessly addicted.

One man's tragic story

Some people drink to escape the unhappy realities of their existence. They deliberately seek the oblivion of drunkenness because they find life unbearable. An alcoholic came to me and asked if he could go through the fifth step of the Alcoholics Anonymous code with me. This step involves honestly sharing your story with another person in all its humiliating detail.

As a boy at school he had felt different and inferior to others. At fourteen, he had his first alcoholic drink and it made him feel as good as the others. When it wore off he wanted the experience again and he became a regular drinker while still at school. On leaving school he established his own business and built it up until he employed thirty men, but he always needed a drink to make him feel adequate to cope with life. Gradually, his drinking made him neglectful of his business and he began to lose money. He gambled to get money but only lost more. He married, but after some time his wife could not endure his drinking habits and the uncertain financial situation, and she left him.

He finally had to give up the business and now, without an income or a family, he sought escape through the oblivion that alcohol gave. He attended Larundel Psychiatric Hospital and stayed on to qualify as a psychiatric assistant, but he soon lost this position because of his drinking. Without money to buy drink, he developed the habit of attaching himself to a group of mourners at a funeral so that he could go back to the house after the service, where he knew that drink would be served. He became friendly with women in hotels who bought him drinks. This led to adultery but it was the drink rather than the women that he sought.

Realising the state he had now reached, he experienced a period of guilt during which he began attending the Salvation Army. He joined them in

- 60 -

their street marches and he sometimes went to the front following a service, seeking the power to overcome his addiction, but all to no avail. Desperate for money, he sought a job and ended up drinking the methylated spirits used for cleaning glass. He went for a drink one dinner time and got back to work three weeks later. Now penniless, he slept in parks and picked up cigarette butts to smoke. He had finally become the typical derelict drunk.

One day after a week's drinking, he knew that he had come to the end of the road. He calmly considered the possibilities. First there was continued hopelessness. He could not accept this, so either he must find a cure somehow or he would commit suicide and end his misery. He had lost faith in God helping him, but in his desperation he prayed that God would give him the strength to do whatever he might have to do. After this prayer there came into his mind a poster he had seen in a St. Kilda hotel about Alcoholic's Anonymous (A.A.).

He resolved to contact A.A. and he found his way to their St. Kilda Branch, but found only some women there. They gave him a cup of tea and his fare back to the A.A. meeting that night. He went straight to the hotel to spend his fare on a drink but at the door he remembered his promise to the women and did not go in. As he came to the meeting that night he had to pass a slygrog shop and he was given the power to pass it and go on to the meeting. He felt that God was answering his prayer and giving him strength and he began to feel hope within himself.

He got to the meeting and they told him that he only had to keep sober for one day. He knew that he could do that. From then on, he attended A.A. meetings every night for the next five months and stayed sober for each next day. When he came to me he told me that he had not touched drink for 3,000 days. He knows that he is still an alcoholic, and always will be. He does not dare take a single drink for he knows that would start the whole drinking cycle again. He will never be able to drink socially again, for alcoholism cannot be cured.

He sometimes has bad moments when self-pity creeps in, but he goes back to A.A., which he still attends weekly, and he finds help. He now has a job and lives with a relative. He will never have the enjoyment of family and possessions, which others take for granted, but he has found that life without alcohol is still worth living. Multiply this man's experience by 300,000 and you have some idea of the human misery being experienced today and every day as a result of alcohol addiction.

- 61 -

The causes of alcoholism

It is acknowledged that drug users who become addicted generally have an underlying personality problem of which alcoholism is but a symptom. There are various psychological theories that have attempted to isolate certain personality types that are prone to alcoholism. Why can some people drink without ever becoming addicted while others become problem drinkers? No simple answer can be found because so many different types of personality have fallen victims to alcohol that researchers like Yates and Keller have come to the conclusion expressed by Keller that Alcoholics are different in so many ways that it makes no difference'.

A clinical study of young alcoholics in the central Sydney area showed that the majority had an underlying personality disorder. Studies have shown that many drink to relieve symptoms of loneliness and feelings of inferiority, anxiety and frustration. One careful study taken over a thirty-year period showed that 'there is among alcoholics a group whose alcoholism develops in the context of along history of antisocial behaviour dating from childhood, and of childhood experiences of grossly inadequate parental care and extremely low social status'.

On the other hand, Robert Pullan, a journalist in New York, reported in 1975 that Washington D.C., the political capital of U.S.A., had the highest rate of alcoholism in the country with one-in-five adults problem drinkers. Pullan reported that there were nearly fifty per cent more heavy drinkers in Washington than in twenty states where similar studies were done. The area in the city with the highest concentration of drinkers is north-west Washington which includes the residences of many diplomats, politicians and high level departmental decision makers.

Former Senator Harold Hughes said, 'People who live here are under intense pressure. They are competing in one of the toughest societies in the country. The pressures are conducive to drinking.' So the risks of alcohol addiction seem to be just as great at the top as at the bottom of the social scale. Alcoholics generally view themselves as inadequate and alcohol provides a crutch and a temporary boost to their self-esteem.

A. D. Ingamells, in an article on this subject of the causative factors of alcohol addiction, concludes that while evidence regarding personality factors is meaningful in terms of treatment it has not resulted in any firm conclusions about personality as a causative factor. One common factor that does emerge is a general lack of organization and integration of the self, that

- 62 -

is, an inability to cope with life. This, rather than any specific trait, is one of the cardinal characteristics of the alcoholic personality.

Most personalities have a stress ceiling at which their competence breaks down and at which they feel inadequate for the responsibilities that are theirs. This is an outward circumstantial factor rather than a personality trait and places us all in the category of potential alcoholics, depending on our stress level and outward circumstances. Put simply, this means that all who use alcohol as a beverage may at some time use it as a crutch and an escape and it may become a problem in their life. It is true that those with personality problems will still have problems, even if they abstain from using alcohol, but if they do drink their problems will be increased and compounded.

Dangers for ordinary social drinkers

Most people who just drink occasionally or socially feel that there are no dangers involved, but if they are inexperienced drinkers they are liable to be in danger through ignorance of the effects of alcohol. De Kettil Bruun of Helsinki pointed out that Australians tended to concentrate on the problems caused through chronic alcoholism but overseas the tendency was to see alcohol itself as the problem and limit its use.

It is estimated that 75% of drivers killed in single vehicle accidents have blood alcohol levels of double the legal limit and a disproportionate number of these are under twenty years of age. They are too young to be alcoholics; they are ordinary social drinkers. It is very easy for a person who is an occasional drinker to exceed the safety limit without realising it. Dr Gerald Milner was recently reported as saying that a survey had shown that four out of every ten Victorians between the ages of twelve and twenty often get drunk and put themselves at risk of everything from road crashes to criminality-- theft, rape and manslaughter.

An AJADD journal report stated that, 'Anne Raymond and Michael Henderson have documented the widespread and absolutely appalling ignorance on alcohol, its properties and its effects on human beings. This ignorance, unfortunately, seems most pronounced in those whom it affects most, that is, the eighteen to twenty-four-year-old male, the age group most commonly found drinking, driving and crashing'. Many young men under twenty-five, who were not alcoholics but who drank excessively one night, crashed their cars and died as a result. Others are in prison because of what they did while under the influence of alcohol following one drinking spree.

- 63 -

The other major danger for the social drinker is that each drink moves the drinker a little further along the road to possible addiction. Dr M. H. Knisely has demonstrated that brain damage is not merely an end effect but occurs progressively from the very first drink a person takes and accumulates with every drink thereafter. Dr Knisely writes, 'Brain cells, as medical men have long known, do not multiply and are irreplaceable. Thus successive damage done to the brain accumulates throughout life. Every time a person takes a few drinks he hastens this process, damaging his brain by cutting off oxygen supply to enormous numbers of small areas of brain tissue, thereby killing large numbers of brain cells prematurely'.

The heavy social drinker is still accepted in society and maintains a respectable image, but often he has a drinking problem. Peter Game, a journalist, in a study on alcoholism wrote, 'The typical alcoholic is not the skid row 'bum' shuffling along in old army greatcoat and sandshoes, scavenging from the rubbish bins. Most alcoholics are in the work force. He is the man sitting next to you in the train, the executive, the housewife, the doctor, the factory worker, the priest'. There is no clearly defined boundary between the social drinker and the so-called alcoholic. The only safe position in relation to alcohol is voluntary abstinence.

What does the Bible teach about the use of alcohol?

The Old Testament often mentions wine as the normal drink of the people. It is not condemned but accepted as one of God's gifts and thanks is given to God every Sabbath for his gifts of bread and wine. Jesus made wine at the wedding at Cana and he used wine in the Passover ceremony. Paul advised Timothy to use a little wine for medicinal purposes. This biblical approval is regarded by some as support for the use of wine by Christians today. But the circumstances of those days were so different that we cannot take this biblical approval as total support for wine drinking today.

In biblical times it was normal for families to grow their own grapes and make their own wine. It was limited in quantity and had to last the family for the next twelve months. Probably because of its scarcity and possibly also because of its potency it was often mixed with water in the proportion of one part wine to four parts of water, just as we do cordial. So when this wine was diluted it would only have an alcoholic content of around 3%. As such, it was not harmful. Rabbi Eleazer forbad saying the table blessing on undiluted wine. At the Jewish Passover ceremony today it is customary for the wine to

- 64 -

be diluted for the women and children.

Naturally fermented wine never exceeds around 14% alcohol as at this level the alcohol, being a poison, kills the bacteria which makes it. We are not sure what kind of wine is referred to in the Bible. The Hebrew word yayin and the Greek word oinos are both generic words for wine and include fermented wine, unfermented grape juice and even grapes and dried raisins. The traditional Jewish prayer of thanks for wine does not use the word for wine but the phrase 'the fruit of the vine'.

There is evidence from early writers which shows that nonalcoholic wines were in common use in Jesus' day and these were regarded as the best wines. Aristotle, Herodotus, Pliny and others refer to them. Jesus and Paul may have been referring to grape juice but, speaking personally, I doubt it. They had no refrigerating ability and I think it more likely that they were approving the low alcohol content wine drink common in that day.

How vastly different are the circumstances today. We have large commercial vineyards, breweries and distilleries that produce alcoholic drinks of high alcoholic content in unlimited quantities. These drinks are cheap enough for anyone to buy all that they desire. They are not restricted by scarcity or protected from abuse by low alcoholic content. This makes the excessive intake of alcohol normal rather than exceptional. Due to these greatly different circumstances it would be wrong to use the biblical statements to support our modern drinking habits.

Guiding principles for the Christian

The Old Testament warns against the use of strong drink and both Testaments condemn drunkenness. But Jesus did not list prohibitions or make laws for his followers. He gave guiding principles. One of these principles is that our bodies belong to God, they are temples of the Holy Spirit and we are to present them to God as a living sacrifice. It is therefore improper to dull our minds and impair the use of our faculties by using drugs of any sort, except for medicinal purposes.

To knowingly use a drug that will affect our judgement and progressively poison our body is incompatible with the Christian view of the body. Second, a Christian is always to act in such a way that his conduct is safe for others to follow. Jesus was very outspoken on this point. He said, 'As for the man who leads astray one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him to be thrown in to the sea with a millstone around his neck'.

- 65 -

Paul states the same principle when he says, 'It is not right to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble'. A feeling of responsibility for others makes us think carefully about the example we are setting.

A Christian may not see anything wrong with having an occasional drink but nevertheless may voluntarily be a total abstainer because if he drinks his example may lead others to become problem drinkers. Christians have always felt this way and while some denominations and individual Christians place the emphasis on moderation, others have felt that any use of alcoholic beverages is inconsistent with Christian teaching and they have adopted total abstinence as their personal code.

In view of the magnitude of the alcoholic problem and the tragic personal and social consequences of drinking, Churches of Christ members have had a traditional strong opposition to the use of alcohol and most members are total abstainers. We strongly urge all Christians to set an example to the rest of the community by their own voluntary abstinence. Dr Alan Walker of the Uniting Church said recently, 'The time has come to launch a new world crusade for alcohol free living. In personal terms, the call is to total abstinence'.

 

- 66 -

7. Should Christians gamble?

Gambling, in many different forms, has always been part of human society, but in Australia it has recently reached epidemic proportions through the introduction of poker machines and glamorised gambling casinos. Its underlying motivation, greed, is discussed in this article in relation to biblical teachings.

GREED IS AN ENDEMIC DISEASE found only in humans; it does not occur in any other species. It causes more human suffering than any of the diseases that invade our physical bodies yet there is no attempt to eradicate it. It is a spirit that invades our minds and we often willingly submit to its lure. But it is a two-edged sword; while we seek to profit from our own greed we suffer from the greed of others. It is a virus that transforms a society from a cooperative, mutually supportive community, into a competitive economic jungle where others must lose so that we can win.

Greed has reached epidemic proportions in the world today; it is virtually out of control. We were no longer content with our raffles, our lotteries and our racetrack bookmakers; so we invented new ways to feed this monster in our midst. We built totalizator machines and opened betting 'shops', we invented Bingo for senior citizens, poker machines for housewives and the sporting public, scratch cards for quick money, and Keno and million dollar lotteries for television. But still our greed was not satiated. So now we are

- 67 -

building temples called casinos exclusively for the worship of the great god Greed. The motive behind all forms of gambling is the desire to obtain something for nothing. A disproportionately large return is expected from a small outlay. Others have to lose so that we can win.

Christians should not participate in any form of gambling

The principle behind all gambling is contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Master we serve. Jesus taught that serving is more important than being served and giving is more satisfying than getting. In gambling, others must lose so that we can gain.

The gambler does not experience the satisfaction of a job well done that earns a due reward. Gamblers are parasites; they live off the wages earned by others. Generally, gambling does not pay. Most gamblers lose more than they win. Most people are only occasional gamblers who only invest small sums for the bit of excitement involved. It is not a question of labelling all gambling as 'sinful' but rather a matter of understanding the underlying motivation and refusing to allow greed to get a hold in our lives.

Fortunately, there is another spirit in the world that is the opposite to the spirit of greed. It is the spirit of love. The spirit of love is the spirit of cooperation, mutual sharing and support. It does not seek things for itself but instead seeks to make a contribution to the community. It delights to give rather than to get. If others suffer need, it delights to share what it has so that there will be an equality of suffering. It is the spirit that the God of creation imparts to those who seek to know him and do his will. It is the spirit of Jesus who renounced status and riches and whose only possessions were the clothes he wore. It is the spirit that pervades the whole of the Bible so let us open the scriptures to see how we are to confront and defeat the spirit of greed.

One of the earliest commands God gave his people was, 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his manservant or his maidservant, or his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour'. In the New Testament we are told that covetousness is idolatry. When people do not worship and serve God they often make money their purpose in life and so greed becomes their god. Acquiring money becomes the dominant motivation of their lives. Jesus said, 'You cannot serve both God and money'.

The spirit of greed and the spirit of love are mutually exclusive, one, or

- 68 -

the other, becomes the dominating principle of a life. Paul tells us that 'The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil'. He reminds us that we brought nothing into the world and we can take nothing out of it. If we have food and clothing enough for our needs we should be content. He tells his readers that 'People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction'. He wrote to the Ephesian church saying that there must not be even a hint of greed in their midst.

Jesus said, 'Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions'. He told the story of a farmer who put his security in his possessions but who died the night he retired. He was the only man Jesus called a fool because he was rich in goods but not 'rich toward God'. In his sermon on the Mount, Jesus urged his hearers not to make the acquisition of money their aim. He said, 'The pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well'.

Jesus also said, 'Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also'. Heavenly treasure is acquired by a life of loving God and ministering to the needs of others. Jesus does not want us to live colourless lives devoid of ambition. We should aim to serve God with a clear conscience and to excel in whatever field of work we choose. The biblical advice is to keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have because God has said, 'Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you'.

If we never have enough money there is a better way to balance the family budget for people on regular incomes. Wise people learn to live within their income by using the budgeting principle. If we do not set aside money for the periodic larger bills we will always be in financial difficulties. The secret is to sit down and first of all record where the money is presently being spent. We might see at a glance that we need to make some changes in our spending pattern. Then list the particular spending areas. First, allocate an amount for housekeeping that will be spent each week to cover food and sundry items; this gives you cash in your purse or your wallet for immediate needs. Don't forget to include your offering for church in your budget.

- 69 -

Now make another allocation to go into a separate account for periodic needs such as clothes and education and so on. Make a list of recurring overhead quarterly and annual bills for items such as rent or mortgage repayments, rates, insurance, telephone, gas, electricity, car running and replacement and so on. These are totalled on an annual basis so that the amount required to be put aside each pay can be determined. This goes into a separate account every pay and it is a wonderful feeling to know that every time a bill comes in there is money there to pay it. Unfortunately this will not be easy for those in uncertain employment but there is no doubt that budgeting is better than gambling, whatever the income may be.

You will probably be surprised how much you have to put aside every pay packet to meet these recurring expenses. Include an amount, however small, in this account for savings to be used for contingencies, holidays and so on. This is the only way to live within your income without being constantly short of money and forever wondering how you are going to make ends meet. We have been a family who have lived on a fairly small income all our lives and if we had not budgeted in this way we would have been forever in financial difficulties but using this method we always managed.

There is an old saying that a fool and his money are soon parted. One of the surest ways to be parted from your money without getting anything in return is to gamble. You will win occasionally but the phenomenal profits from poker machines and casinos is proof that in the long run you will be the loser. Of course, many people gamble just for the excitement and don't mind losing. It is sad to think that their lives are so dull that they have to pay for a little excitement in this way. Personally, I have found the Christian way of life so fulfilling that I have not felt the need for artificial excitement of this nature.

Christians should feel guilty if they buy a Tatts ticket or play the pokies or lay out money for any form of gambling because in so doing they are giving way to greed, which is totally contrary to the spirit of the Christ whom they serve.

 

- 70 -

8. How is the Bible inspired?

The nature and authority of the Bible is one of the most important current issues before the churches. The view we hold will determine most other religious questions. This article presents some background information that is necessary for us to form our personal opinion.

Conflicting views about the Bible

THE BIBLE IS both a unifying and a divisive force for Christians. It is the final authority for all branches of the Christian church but, like all other written documents, it has to be interpreted. Different interpretations have led to the various denominational traditions and to divergent views within these denominations.

The main division of outlook is between the 'literalist' or fundamentalist view, which regards every word of the Bible as inspired and infallible (incapable of error), and the 'liberal' view, which recognises that the Bible has both divine and human features and contains both the words of God and the words of men.

The extreme literalist view is represented by the plenary-verbal theory of inspiration. In the article 'Doctrine of the Bible' in Willmington's Guide to the Bible, the following statements are made:

- 71 -

All (plenary) the very words (verbal) of the Bible are inspired by God. This view alone is the correct one. (p. 790)

Plenary-verbal inspiration does not permit any historical, scientific or prophetic error whatsoever. While it is admitted that the Bible is not a textbook on science, it is nevertheless held that every scientific statement in the Scriptures is absolutely true. (p. 791)

Orthodoxy claims that the Bible is objective in nature and proclaims not a social gospel, but a sinner gospel. According to this view, whenever there is a clear contradiction between the Bible and any assumed 'fact' of history or science; it is that 'fact' which must give way to the Bible, and not the reverse. (p.795)

At the other extreme, a representative liberal view would regard the books of the Bible as only inspired in the same way as we speak of other human literary works being inspired. The Moderator of the Uniting Church, the Rev. Warren Bartlett, in an address to the 1996 Assembly of Victoria, said, 'The Godly inspiration which inspired Luther, Knox, Wesley, Martin Luther King and which fires Desmond Tutu and you and me, is it not the same as that which was experienced by Elijah, Isaiah, Peter, Paul and other canonical characters?'

If the words of Christian thinkers and leaders today have the same authority as the biblical writers, it virtually destroys the concept of the canon of scripture and reduces the Bible to the level of a historical reference book. We suggest that truth is rarely found in extreme positions but is more likely to be found by those who approach a subject with an unprejudiced mind. In order to be able to form an opinion ourselves we need more information on the origin, the history and the claims the Bible makes for itself, so let us study the subject in more detail.

The Bible is a library of diverse books

It is important to realize that although it is bound as a single volume the Bible is in fact a small library of sixty-six different books. They were written by many different authors who addressed widely diverse groups of people over a period in excess of a thousand years. When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in the 4th century, he titled his translation The Divine Library.

- 72 -

Instead of making an evaluation of the Bible as a whole, each book and each group of books should be evaluated separately because they differ so greatly from each other.

First, the Bible differs considerably in its two main divisions. The thirty-nine books that comprise the Jewish Bible, and which Christians call the Old Testament, were all written by Jews, only for the Jewish people who were in a special covenant relationship with God. Nevertheless, they have an historical, ethical, prophetic and devotional value for Christians. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament are the accepted authentic Christian documents concerning the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the teaching of the apostles, and the history of the early church.

The Jewish sacred books were not called the 'Bible' until Christian times, and Jews today prefer to refer to them by their Hebrew name, Tenach. If we disregard the vowels in this title (because Hebrew has no vowels) we have the letters 'T', 'N' and 'CH' (pronounced 'K'). 'T' stands for Torah (the Law), 'N' stands for Neviim (the Prophets) and 'K' stands for Ketuvim (the Writings). These three distinct divisions comprise the Hebrew scriptures, which were used by Jesus and the apostles.

The first five books of the Bible contain the Law that Moses received by divine revelation. The Jewish scholars consider the Law to be superior to the Prophets and the Prophets superior to the Writings. So we see that the various books of the Old Testament were not considered of equal value or authority by the Jewish people and this has to be taken into account when we are considering the authority of the scriptures.

The prophetic books are divided into the former prophets and the latter prophets. The former prophetic books are chiefly historical and cover the period from the death of Moses to the Babylonian exile. They are Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. They mainly contain the officially recognised history of the Jewish people during this period. The latter prophetic books contain the speeches of the great prophets of Israel. Their main message is a call to repentance and a challenge to the people to be true to the revelation that came through Moses.

The Writings, comprise the books of Ruth, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, The Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations and the historical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and 1 & 2 Chronicles. They were the last books to be accepted as part of the Jewish scriptures and they are regarded as the least important part of the Jewish Bible. Some, such as The Song of Songs,

- 73 -

Ecclesiastes and Lamentations state that they are human compositions.

The New International Version (NIV) of the Bible describes Proverbs as 'A collection of wise sayings and good advice for daily living'. The Psalms are the opposite to the Law in the sense that the Law is God's words to men but the Psalms are man's words to God. They are songs of praise, worship and thanksgiving to God plus petitions for his help and protection. Surely God inspired the Psalms only in the sense that they are a spontaneous human response to his mercy, goodness and greatness. Of what value to God would praises be if he had composed the words himself? The Psalms were the Jewish Hymn Book, written to be sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments. They are the equivalent of our hymns and are an important expression of human feelings and aspirations.

We could summarise the Old Testament by saying that it contains both the words of God and the words of men. It is a record of the interaction between God and the people he chose to be in a covenant relationship with himself. It declares that God has communicated with mankind from the beginning always using human spokesmen to make his wishes known.

The twenty-seven books that comprise the New Testament also fall into three main divisions. The four gospels record the life and teachings of Jesus; the book of Acts is the history of the early church; and the epistles are letters written by various apostles to the early churches. Luke's introduction to his gospel shows that it was the result of his own research. He says, 'Since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus'. So he wrote his gospel to provide his friend Theophilus with a detailed account of the life and teaching of Jesus. It was such a good biography that the early church preserved it as an authentic document worthy of preservation. It would never have occurred to Luke that it would one day become part of the Christian Bible.

Paul's letters had a similar origin. They were mostly written to particular congregations which he had founded with a view to providing further teaching and encouragement and sometimes to correct errors that had arisen. The two letters to the church at Corinth in which he addressed particular problems within the congregation, the letters of advice to his prot‚g‚, Timothy, and the delightful personal letter to Philemon about his slave Onesimus, illustrate the fact that these were just ordinary letters written by a man filled with the Holy Spirit, to meet particular situations.

- 74 -

I think we can assume that it would not have occurred to Paul that these letters would be treasured and become part of a new 'Christian' Bible. Their value lies in the fact that they were written by Paul who was an apostle who had been specially chosen by Jesus and taught by the Holy Spirit to become the founder and teacher of the first Gentile churches. The letters by Peter, James and John were similarly preserved because of their apostolic status. After Jesus' death the apostles, who were the custodians of his message, became the voice of authority for the believers. When the apostles died, their authority was continued through their writings. Their letters alone became authoritative for the early Christians and in the course of time they, together with the gospels and the Acts of the apostles, were added to the Jewish Bible and became the New Testament.

How did only sixty-six books become the Bible?

How did the books of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings of the Old Testament; and the Gospels, The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the New Testament become selected and separated to become The Bible? In the previous section, we have already indicated the principle by which the New Testament books were chosen. Now we need to look at the history of the formation of the whole Bible. Scholars speak of the canon of scripture and the individual books as canonical books. The word 'canon' means a measuring rod. The books of the Bible were selected by the religious leaders because they measured up to a commonly accepted standard. Other writings were rejected because they failed to measure up to this standard. What was this standard by which they were measured?

In each of the testaments there is one leader who towers above all others; in the Old Testament it is Moses and in the New Testament it is Jesus Christ. Both received messages from God which they passed on to the people. They were divinely chosen leaders who gave to the world creative new religious teaching that led to the development of Judaism and Christianity. The words of Moses in the Law and the words of Jesus in the gospels became the standard against which all other writings were judged. The prophetic books of the Old Testament and the epistles of the New Testament were supplementary to the revelation that initially came through Moses and through Jesus Christ. It was this revelation from God that gave the words of Moses and the prophets, and Jesus and the apostles, authority. The revelation itself was the authority.

The recognition of the particular books which were considered inspired

- 75 -

and which came to comprise both the Old and New Testaments was a gradual process. There were a number of other books from the Old Testament period which were borderline but were not considered part of the prophetic tradition and were classified as apocryphal books. The Old Testament apocrypha comprises fourteen books which mostly cover the historical period between Malachi and the coming of the Messiah.

They were never considered part of the Hebrew scriptures by the Jews but were included with the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, and formed part of, or an appendix to, the Old Testament in most translations until recent times. They were printed with the early editions of the Authorised Version in the seventeenth century and are still found in some current editions of the Bible. They were officially declared to be part of scripture by the Catholic church in the sixteenth century. The Catholic practices of prayers for the dead and praying to the saints owe their origin to these books. They are also recognised by the eastern Orthodox churches and to some degree by the Anglican and Episcopal churches. But they were rejected as scripture by the Jews and the Protestant reformers.

Similarly, there were a number of so-called gospels and epistles by non- apostolic writers that circulated in the early church which were not accepted as scripture. For example, one of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament, the 4th-century Ms Codex Sinaiticus, includes two books which are not part of our present New Testament, namely, the letter of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas. Why were they not later accepted as part of the New Testament?

On the other hand, some of the books that now form part of the New Testament took some time to gain acceptance. Among these were Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Revelation. It was not until the fourth century that the list of canonical books that comprise the New Testament was finally settled and added to the Jewish Bible to become 'The Bible' we use today.

Some have mistakenly argued that because the books of the Bible were written and chosen by men, they are only human documents addressed to a past age and can therefore be adapted by us to suit our present circumstances. In reply, it needs to be emphasised that men did not create the revelation itself, they only recorded it. The words of Moses and the prophets and the words of Jesus and the apostles have authority only because of their source. The writer to the book of Hebrews says, 'In the past God spoke to our forefathers

- 76 -

through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son'. (Hebrews 1:1-2)

A religion has to define itself. The Jewish and Christian scholars used the divine revelation received through Moses and Jesus to select the documents that were consistent with that revelation and to reject those that were inconsistent or redundant. The creative period of divine revelation ceased with the prophets and the apostles and no subsequent writers had the same authority and so the canon of scripture was closed.

Throughout the centuries, there have been some excellent Jewish and Christian exponents of revealed truth whose writings are valued and preserved but they have not been added to the Bible because their writings are only expositions and not new revelations from God. The writings of Jewish scholars like Rashi, Maimonides and Joseph Caro and Christian thinkers like Athanasius, Augustine and Calvin were preserved and respected but they did not have the authority of the canonical books. The Bible is authoritative for us today because it is the record of the revelation of God through Moses and the prophets and through Jesus and the apostles.

The methodology of revelation

There is another aspect of the Bible that has created a problem for many and is still a cause of hot debate. It relates to the pre-historical period of life on earth. Human beings were on earth long before writing was developed so there was no way of recording the events that predated writing. The early stories about human history and God's dealings with Adam and his descendants would have been passed on orally from generation to generation in the same way as the stories about the Creation were passed on by the Australian Aborigines. All primitive tribes that do not use writing have a body of historic tradition, which is passed on orally.

Oral tradition can be accurate and authoritative. The biblical commentaries of the Jewish Rabbis were accurately passed on orally for centuries until their volume became so great that they were committed to writing and became the Talmud. The authorship of the early chapters of Genesis has been attributed to Moses by some Jewish scholars in which case he would have received this pre-historical knowledge by revelation from God. Other Jewish scholars believe that he, or some other later writer, recorded an early oral tradition. It is difficult to know how much credibility can be placed on this early prehistory portion of Genesis?

- 77 -

Some regard these early chapters as myths or legends. My dictionary tells me that a myth is a purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons whereas a legend is a traditional story popularly regarded as historical. So a myth is fictitious but a legend is based on an historical event or person even though some of the details may have become distorted. Some Christians regard the early chapters of Genesis as legendary but as an essentially true record of creation and the early history of human life. Others believe that Moses wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit receiving the actual words by dictation from God in the same way that Mohammed said he received the Koran.

What claims does the Bible make for itself?

Some people, in their zeal to defend the authority of the Bible, have made greater claims for it than it makes for itself. The plenary-verbal theory of inspiration cited earlier, which states that 'All the very words of the Bible are inspired by God' and it 'does not permit any historical, scientific or prophetical error whatsoever'. In short, that every word of the Bible is infallible, is a claim never made anywhere in the Bible. So let us look at its actual claims.

In the Pentateuch we frequently have the phrase 'The Lord said to Moses' and in the prophets 'The word of the Lord came to me saying,' or 'Thus saith the Lord', or similar claims. In the New Testament the two leading apostles, Peter and Paul, made important statements. In 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul wrote All scripture is God-breathed' (NIV) or 'All scripture is inspired by God' (RSV).

Peter wrote, 'No prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spake from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit'. (NIV) (2 Peter 1:20-21) Jesus often referred to the Jewish scriptures as authoritative in such words as 'It is written' (Matt. 4:4) and 'Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms'. (Luke 24:44) There are three key words in these passages that will help us understand the nature of revelation but if misunderstood will lead to unscriptural views of the Bible. They are the words 'scripture', 'inspiration' and 'prophecy. Let us look at them more closely.

What is scripture? Today it is a synonym for the Bible but what did it mean two thousand years ago when Jesus and the apostles used the word? The Greek word graphe which is translated 'scripture' simply means 'any-thing

- 78 -

written'. It has reappeared in our day as 'graffiti', anything written on a wall. So these two words that seem to be poles apart, both mean the same thing-- simply 'writing'. When the New Testament documents were translated into Latin, graphe became scriptum, from which we get the English words 'script' and 'scripture'.

When Jesus and the apostles used the word, did it refer to any Jewish documents or only to the Jewish writings which were considered sacred? The latter would appear to be the case but on only two occasions Paul refers specifically to 'the Holy Scripture' (Romans 1:2) and 'the sacred scriptures'. (2 Timothy 3:15) However, any quotations by Jesus or the apostles from these sacred writings were always from books that are part of our present Old Testament which appears to have been established as a collection of divinely given authoritative books by then. When the word 'scripture' is used in the New Testament, it refers only to the Old Testament writings as the New Testament did not then exist.

What does inspired mean? The word 'inspired' does not occur anywhere in the original Greek manuscripts. The word 'inspiration' occurs only once in some translations of 2 Timothy 3:16 but is replaced by 'God breathed' in the NIV The Greek word Paul used is theopneustos. It is a composite word and is literally theo (God) and pneustos (breath). Benjamin Warfield's article in The International Bible Encyclopedia says, 'The Greek word in this passage very distinctly does not mean inspired of God. This phrase is rather the rendering of the Latin, divinitus inspirata. What it says of scripture is, not that it is 'breathed into by God' or is the product of the Divine 'inbreathing' into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, 'God-breathed', the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them. No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed.'

What is the meaning of prophecy? Peter wrote, 'No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit'. (2 Peter 1:20-21) The Greek word is propheteia which means a public declaration or exposition of a message that has originated, not from the prophet's own mind, but from God. The core phrase of

- 79 -

Peter's statement is 'men spake from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit'.

Revelation and inspiration combine in the prophet to produce scripture. The keyword in Peter's statement is the Greek word pheromenai, which is in the passive voice and means to be borne or carried along by some power other than oneself. It is variously translated 'carried along', 'moved' or 'borne'. Homer uses it of a sailing ship being driven before a gale and swept onwards by the force of wind and waves, totally in the control of the elements. So true prophecy does not originate in the mind of men but comes by revelation from God. Peter is here only speaking of the prophecy of scripture. There are parts of scripture that are not words of prophecy. Peter's statement does not apply to these non-prophetic passages.

We have been looking at the origin and development of the Bible in an attempt to come to a better understanding of the method God used to communicate his will to us. There is scope for different views about the Bible but it is our common belief in and devotion to Jesus Christ that sets us apart as Christians and makes us part of the family of faith. There is a tendency among Christians to use a person's views about the Bible to classify them as doctrinally sound or otherwise. Whatever view of inspiration we hold, it must be consistent with the nature and history of scripture itself.

The relevance of scripture

We now come to the practical application of the Bible to everyday life. It is not enough to understand the origin, nature and meaning of the text of scripture, we also have to ask how far these two-thousand-year-old documents apply to our lives today. Do the biblical commandments, ethics and morality still apply to us?

This question is particularly relevant in the areas of church leadership and personal behaviour. Sections of the church have recently been debating the role of women in the church and questions about sexuality. The former is a leadership and administrative issue in which the Jewish customs of Paul's day have to be taken into account and may not be of universal application. The latter is a moral question. If the standards of personal morality are consistent throughout scripture is there any reason why they do not still apply to us today?

As an example, let us consider the question of whether practising homosexuals

- 80 -

should be accepted as church members and ministers in the church. This is currently being debated around the world and is a live issue in some sections of the Australian church. Both Old and New Testaments are quite explicit about their condemnation of sodomy, as it is called in scripture. (See Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Deut. 22:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, & 2 Kings 23:7; Romans 1:26-30; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Revelation 22:15. Also see NIV footnote on Deut. 23:18 where dog is translated male prostitute. See chapter 5 on sexuality for a fuller treatment of this subject.)

The question is, has God changed his mind in respect to the standard of morality he requires of us? Jesus endorsed the moral standards God gave to Moses and deepened them to cover our thought-life as well. Paul's statements on this question are consistent with the revelation given to Moses.

These explicit statements of scripture are being set aside on the basis that Christian beliefs are not static but dynamic and the living church has the right to change standards to meet the changing conditions in today's society. Surely it is presumptuous to claim that church leaders today can speak with more authority than the apostles and the scriptures. This is contrary to the historical view of biblical inspiration, which the whole of Christendom has held since the New Testament can on was established in the early period of the church's life. As stated earlier, it makes the whole concept of a canon of books that the church recognises as authoritative and meaningless.

One Christian leader recently stated that, 'The church recognises as authoritative only the Word of God, not the words of the Bible'. Here, a distinction is being made between the authority of Jesus (the Word of God) and the authority of Paul's letters (the words of the Bible). It is being said that loving relationships between consenting partners of either sex are more important than the behavioural standard so clearly enunciated by the apostle Paul. The more important issue here is not whether homosexuals should be accepted as church members but whether the Bible or the church is the ultimate authority for Christians.

We cannot live in isolation either as an individual or as a Christian denomination. This question concerns all Christians and it confronts Churches of Christ. We can either approve, disapprove or remain silent. We should not remain silent when we believe error is being advocated and our beliefs challenged. Traditionally, Churches of Christ have always been a Bible-believing

- 81 -

movement. We have called ourselves a New Testament church with the motto 'Where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent.' We have not distinguished between the words of Jesus and the words of the apostolic writers of the Bible.

In the present climate, we need to declare ourselves and reaffirm our traditional faith.

 

- 82 -

9. Are Bible translations accurate?

The flood of new translations in the last fifty years has led to some uncertainty as to the actual words of scripture. This article explains why new translations are necessary and reveals the tireless work of scholars in their efforts to recover the actual words of the original manuscripts.

THE STORY of the English Bible and the numerous translations that are available today is a fascinating one. So many new translations have been published during the 20th century that many people have found it confusing and wonder which is the real or the best Bible. Some understanding of the nature of Bible translation and the reasons for these revisions is necessary for all who take the Bible as their guide in life. Probably the best place to start telling the story is with the origin of the well-known translation commonly called the Authorised version.

Early English translations

The first English translation of the New Testament was made by the Roman Catholic priest John Wycliffe in 1383. Then followed the first printed New Testament translated by William Tyndale and published in 1526. The details of Tyndale's translation form a story worth telling by itself. Tyndale's version was a new breakthrough because it was made from Greek manuscripts, whereas the earlier version by Wycliffe had been a translation of a translation, namely,

- 83 -

the old Latin version known as the Vulgate. As earlier Greek manuscripts were discovered, revised translations were made by different groups of scholars; these revisions were known as Coverdale's Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible.

Because the different wording of these various versions produced confusion about the actual text, King James, as head of the Church in England, ordered that an official version be made. When this official version was published in 1611, it was the only version authorised to be used in church, hence it came to be known as the Authorised version. It was this fact, as well as its superior quality, which made it the accepted Bible for the next three hundred years. It was an excellent translation of the Greek texts then available and it duly merited its popularity.

The problem of the Greek text

The translators of the Authorised version were handicapped because they lacked a reliable Greek text to work from. They used the best text that was available to them, which was a revision of the Greek text that had been compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century. The following quotation from the introduction to the Revised Standard Version (RSV) gives us some understanding of their problem:

The King James version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes containing the accumulated errors of the fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Bezae (1589) which followed closely that published by Erasmus (1516-1535), which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text.

While the King James Version has been wonderfully used by God, scholars have increasingly become aware of its minor imperfections. As far back as 1863 the highly respected Greek scholar, Dean Alford, in the introduction to his 'Greek New Testament', made the following comment about the Greek text on which the Authorised version was based.

'The critical authority of the Received Text is very feeble. Neither Erasmus nor the Complutensian editors had before them

- 84 -

any sufficient critical apparatus whereupon to construct their text. Nor did the latter use faithfully even that which they had. Wetstein has shown that their text is singularly corrupted and inaccurate. Erasmus also, besides committing numerous inaccuracies, tampered with the readings of the very few manuscripts that he collated.'

Erasmus lived before the principles for ascertaining the most reliable text had been worked out and before the science of textual criticism was born. In addition, most of the manuscripts now available to scholars were then undiscovered. Now we have more than 4,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in part. They present a variety of readings, but when they are compared, we are able to get a reasonably accurate estimate of what the original text was.

How Erasmus would envy today's biblical scholars. Instead of the eight manuscripts he had, today we have 4,000, and instead of the 10th- and 12th- century manuscripts he used, which were 1,000 years removed from the originals, today we have excellent 4th- and 5th-century manuscripts with portions as early as the 2nd century.

Manuscript types and families

The actual work of translation is comparatively simple. As we have seen, the real problem is deciding what the original text was, for we do not have any of the original documents, only handwritten copies. The word 'manuscript', until the advent of printing, meant a handwritten document. Despite great care, minor copying errors occurred, and as copies were made from these copies, these minor errors and variations were perpetuated.

Sometimes whole sections of text that are missing in early manuscripts appear to have been added at a later date and these were copied into all subsequent manuscripts. The last twelve verses of Mark's gospel and the first eleven verses of John 8 are two passages that are not found in the oldest manuscripts we have. The biblical scholars found themselves in possession of many different manuscripts with slight variations and it was necessary to compare and assess these variations in order to produce a Greek text as true to the original as possible. By following certain scientific principles, a high degree of accuracy has been achieved.

Manuscripts fall into two main groups, the 'uncials' and the 'cursives'. The uncials are the earliest; they are written entirely in capital letters. The

- 85 -

cursives, sometimes called minuscles, are later; they are written in a script similar to writing. The uncials are the more reliable because of their earlier date. The older and more reliable of these had not been discovered when Erasmus compiled his Greek text.

Three of the best known complete uncial manuscripts are Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (4th century). Other valuable early texts are Codex Ephremai (5th century), Codex Beza (5th and 6th century) and Codex Regius (8th century). All the uncials are dated before the 10th century; around that time the cursive script was invented and adopted. At least 250 uncial manuscripts are available for reference. There are some 2,600 cursives dating from the 10th to the 15th centuries. After that the manuscript material ceased due to the advent of printing.

In addition to these copies of the originals, there are many biblical quotations in the writings of the early Christian Fathers, which are valuable for references. Also, another source of reference is the many Lectionaries used for scripture readings in church services. Some 1,600 of these provide further help in deciding the text in difficult instances. The 4,000 handwritten copies of the Greek New Testament text available to biblical scholars far exceeds the documentation for any other ancient book. The Bible is by far the best- documented book of the ancient world.

Evaluating the manuscript families

As biblical scholars compared this vast amount of manuscript material, it became obvious that many manuscripts were related by being copied from a common source. Those that could be traced back to a common parentage were called families of manuscripts.

Four major family groups have been classified by biblical scholars. They have been named Western, Syrian, Alexandrian and Neutral. The Alexandrian text is regarded as a kind of authorised Greek text of the early centuries. The Western text bears internal signs of being a revision of the 1st century text of the New Testament. F. F. Bruce says of the Neutral text: 'We see in it a revision or edited text yet we recognise that it is a well edited text established by Christians of the 2nd century on the basis of manuscripts far exceeding in antiquity those which have come down to us.'

As additional earlier manuscripts were discovered the Greek text was under constant revision. The principal revisions were those of Stephanus (1551),

- 86 -

Lachmann (1842), Tischendorf (1849), Tregelles (1861), Westcott & Hort (1881), Nestle (1904) and the revisions by the United Bible Societies of the world (1966 & 1975). Thus we see that we can trace our textual sources right back within a hundred years of the original documents.

The early manuscripts are the main sources of the Greek text used as the basis for all modern translations. They are far more reliable than the few 10th- and 12th-century copies made a thousand years later, on which the translators of the Authorised version had to rely. The textual variations, though numerous, are all minor and none affect any doctrine of the Christian faith.

Early translations and revisions

It ought not to be thought that this matter of Bible translation and revision is only a modern phenomenon; it has been going on during the whole history of the Bible. It is unlikely that there are any significant manuscripts still undiscovered so the Greek text has now been virtually established. There are not likely to be many changes needed from this cause but existing translations will need to be periodically revised because language is continually changing.

The Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible was translated into Greek for the use of the Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ. This translation was called the Septuagint. When the New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament they often used the Greek Septuagint wording; that is why the wording of their quotations often differ from our Old Testament wording.

As early as the 3rd century, the Christian scholar Origen, produced his famous Hexapla edition of the Old Testament. In six parallel columns he reproduced the Hebrew text and five Greek translations; his own and the versions by Symmachus, Aquila, Theodotian and the Septuagint. One of the earliest translations from the Greek text of the New Testament was into the Syrian language. Several different versions were produced. These were later compared and revised and an authorised Syrian Bible, known as the Peshitta, was brought out in the 5th century.

The same thing happened in the Latin language. Various versions were in circulation so in the interests of accuracy and uniformity the Bishop of Rome sought the services of one of the best scholars of the day, called Jerome, and commissioned him to make an authorised version in Latin. Jerome's translation was completed in the 4th century and because it was in the everyday

- 87 -

language spoken by the Romans (the common or vulgar speech) it became known as the Vulgate. Because the liturgy of the Roman church continued to be in Latin until the 20th century, the Vulgate version became the Bible of the western church for the next thousand years.

Modern translations

The revisions of the Greek text required revisions of the English translation and so biblical scholars from the various churches combined to revise and update the Authorised Version. The first revision, which was published in 1881, was called simply The Revised Version. This was followed by The American Standard Version (1901), The Revised Standard Version (1946), The New English Bible (1961) The Jerusalem Bible (1966), Today's English Version, also known as The Good News Bible (NT 1966) and the New International Version (1973).

In addition some special purpose versions have been produced such as the Amplified New Testament and the paraphrase, The Living Bible. No other book has been examined with such thoroughness and devotion in an effort to establish the original text and to provide an accurate translation into our language. Today, we can be confident that we have in our hands the most accurate possible translations of the original inspired autographs.

The trustworthiness of today's Bible

One of the greatest scholars in the field of New Testament criticism was Sir Frederick Kenyon. In his book The Bible and Archaeology, he says, 'The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established'.

Kenyon further says in The Story of The Bible, 'It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all the discoveries and all this study, is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the scriptures and our conviction that we have in our hands the substantial integrity of the veritable Word of God.'

It is still further reassuring to know that no scrap of manuscript has cast doubt on any Christian doctrine. In the Introduction to the Revised Standard

- 88 -

Version, the editor made the following comment: 'It will be obvious to the careful reader that still in 1946 as in 1881 and 1901 no doctrine of the Christian faith has been affected by the revision for the simple reason that out of the thousands of varied readings in the manuscripts none has turned up thus far that requires a revision of Christian doctrine.'

Sufficient has been said to restore the confidence of anyone who has been confused by the different wording in the various translations available today. It is most reassuring to the person who has no knowledge of the original languages in which the Bible was written, or who knows nothing of the processes of textual criticism and translation, to know that they can pick up any modern translation, with the exception of those made by the sects, and read it with confidence, knowing that it is in fact God's word as originally given.

The various shades of meaning given to a passage by the different translations make it so much more meaningful. We can pick up our Bible again with a new reverence and respect and with a deep sense of gratitude to the men and women who copied and preserved it through the centuries and to all who have laboured to make it available to us in our own language.

 

- 89 -

10. What is hell really like?

This article was published by the Federal Literature Department of Churches of Christ in 1994 as Pamphlet 388. It is reproduced here because vague and unscriptural ideas on the subject are still widespread, causing unwarranted fears and reflecting adversely on the character of God.

THE LETTERS AND ARTICLES in the Australian Christian that have referred to the subject of hell have revealed that there is still a wide diversity of opinion about this biblical subject. It might help us reach some consensus of understanding if we look at the history of our English word 'hell'.

Jesus never used the word 'hell' in any of his utterances. The word does not occur anywhere in the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. It is an old English word that comes from a Teutonic root meaning 'covered', 'hidden' or 'unseen' and so it was used of the unseen world of the dead and became a synonym for the state of death. It was therefore a correct translation of the Hebrew word 'Sheol', and its Greek equivalent, 'Hades'. It came into the English Bible via the Authorised Version of 1611 as a translation of these words. It was also used in the English version of the Apostle's creed which says that Jesus 'descended into hell, meaning he entered the state of death. Originally, Sheol, Hades, and hell, were all ethically neutral terms not having any connotation of condemnation or punishment.

The translators created confusion

Unfortunately, the translators of the Authorised Version caused great confusion

- 90 -

by also using the word 'hell' to translate the Greek word 'Gehenna', which has an entirely different meaning. It refers to the final state of the wicked after the day of judgement and it includes the ideas of condemnation and punishment. It is also associated with fire and destruction.

As a result, our English word 'hell' has lost its former meaning of the state of death and taken on the meaning of the final abode of lost souls and, if we take all scripture literally, eternal punishment in flames of fire. When we now talk about hell we mean Gehenna so let us examine Gehenna and discover its meaning.

Gehenna is an Aramaic transliteration of the Hebrew term ge-hinnom, which literally means 'the valley of Hinnom'. The Greek form of the word is Gehenna. Ge-hinnom is an actual valley which lies just outside the old city of Jerusalem on the south-west side. It has an interesting history. It was here that Israel's idolatrous king Manasseh established a centre of worship to the heathen god, Molech, at a spot called Topheth. (2 Chro. 33:6 & 2 Kings 23:10)

The name 'Topheth' comes from a root meaning burning, and it was so named because the worship of Molech required the sacrifice of children who were burned as an offering to the god. (See Jer. 7:30-32) This was an abomination to God and through the prophet Jeremiah he prophesied that it would be called the Valley of Slaughter and would become a cemetery.

Gehenna, a place of destruction

In addition, the valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) also has another quite different association. It became a place of destruction. After it had been defiled by the worship of Molech the very location became abhorrent to the religious leaders of Israel. The valley was used as a rubbish tip for Jerusalem and the higher region outside the city wall became a cemetery. Rubbish tips have two characteristics: below ground the worms are always at work, and above ground fires burn, consuming the rubbish. Perhaps this was why Jesus described Gehenna (the Valley of Hinnom) as a place 'where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' (Mark 9:48) The idea that Gehenna is a place of destruction is conveyed strongly by Jesus' remark.

When we put these different associations together we get a reasonably clear idea of why Jesus chose the valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) to be symbolic of the state of the wicked after the judgement. It was a place where those who

- 91 -

had rejected the worship of the true God and worshipped gods of their own choosing gathered; it was the abode of the dead, and it was a place where fire consumed what had been condemned and discarded. It was the total opposite of life and all that was worth preserving.

Jesus is the first person mentioned in the scriptures to use the valley of Hinnom as a symbol of the place of punishment of the ungodly, but the association of Gehenna with punishment was already a familiar concept in his day. The idea developed in Jewish literature in the period between the prophets and the coming of Christ. The book of Jubilees and 1 Enoch associate Sheol with an abyss as a place of punishment of fallen angels. In later Rabbinic commentaries (the Palestinian Targums) this abyss became identified with the great abyss in the valley of Hinnom just outside Jerusalem. In Jesus' day Gehenna had become the technical term for the place of punishment of unrighteous humans as well as fallen angels.

Jesus' references to Gehenna occur in Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5. The term is also used in James 3:6. Apart from James, Jesus was the only person to use the term in the New Testament records. In all these references it designates the place of punishment of the wicked.

This history of the meaning and the associations of the word 'hell' is accepted by biblical scholars and is not in dispute. Differences of opinion arise when we try to decide what scripture teaches about the nature of Gehenna. We need to ask if Jesus intended us to understand the fire of Gehenna literally or symbolically; if eternal punishment means being tormented forever in the fire of Gehenna; and, whether the wicked continue to live forever in Gehenna or do they perish and cease to exist as the term 'second death' implies? In addressing these questions we move from the area of fact into the area of interpretation and here we can only present our personal understanding of the subject which may or may not be the correct one.

Is hell fire literal or symbolic?

In Jesus' teaching about the final judgement (Matt. 25) he says to the condemned, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'. In Mark 9: vv. 43 and 48 he speaks of the unquenchable fire of Gehenna where 'their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched'. (The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 refers to

- 92 -

Hades and not Gehenna so we will not include it here, except to say that it pictures the rich man as conscious and in torment in a flame. It has probably contributed more to the view of hell as a place of literal fire and conscious suffering than any other passage. It does not fit the usual understanding of Hades and needs to be dealt with separately. See the on this passage at the end of this article.) In Revelation 20:14-15 and 21:8 John speaks of the lake of fire which is called the second death. Death and Hades and those not in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire.

The term 'eternal fire' (Matt. 25 & 41) also occurs in Jude verse 7 in connection with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah where Jude says, 'They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.' The fire was not eternal in the sense that these cities are still burning; it was eternal in its effect; they were destroyed forever. Is the eternal punishment of the godless also eternal only in the sense that they perish forever?

The apostle Peter supports this interpretation when he says 'He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.' (2 Peter 2:6) This is also consistent with the words of the prophet Malachi, 'Behold the day comes, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evil doers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.' (Mal. 4:1)

The use of fire in scripture

We have to take into account the fact that fire is often used symbolically in scripture. It is both a symbol of God's presence and of purification. God's presence was made known to Moses as the appearance of fire on the bush; Elijah was taken up to heaven in chariots of fire; John said that Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire; the Holy Spirit's presence at Pentecost was symbolised by tongues of fire. Malachi says that the Lord is like a refining fire and he will purify the sons of Levi like silver is purified. In Hebrews 12:29 it says, 'Our God is a consuming fire'. In this passage the Greek word used means to use up and consume utterly. In all of these instances fire is used symbolically, not literally.

How shall we interpret the lake of fire in Revelation 19 and 20? It is a lake of fire and brimstone into which are thrown the devil, the beast, the false prophet, death and Hades and all whose names are not in the book of life.

- 93 -

Rev. 20:10 says that the devil and his helpers will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Rev. 21:8 says that the lake of fire and brimstone is the second death.

In seeking to understand these statements we must take into account the fact that the whole of the book of Revelation is written in symbolic language. True believers are called the bride of Christ, they are also called the New Jerusalem. Heaven is described as a city made of pure gold in the dimension of a cube about 2,000 kilometres long, wide and high, with twelve gates made of pearls. If we do not take this as a literal description of heaven, and surely we do not, neither should we take the description of the lake of fire where the godless are tortured forever, literally.

It is generally considered that the cube shape of the holy city symbolises perfection and the gold symbolises the greatest possible value. Similarly, Gehenna is described as a lake of fire because there is nothing so totally destructive as fire, it reduces all that it consumes to nothingness. The lake of fire, called the second death, signifies the purifying of the world of all that is evil; the punishment of the devil and those who have served him is their eternal destruction. Like Sodom and Gomorrah they will cease to exist for ever.

If we take the fire of the judgement of the wicked literally we must also take the fire that is to judge Christians literally. In 1 Cor. 3:11-15 Paul says that those who build their lives on the foundation of Jesus Christ will have their lives tested by fire. 'Each man's work will become manifest; for the Day (of judgement) will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done . . . If any man's work is burned up he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.' If we don't believe that Christians are to be tested in a literal fire neither should we accept the fires of Gehenna as literal.

If, in spite of these texts, we still want to interpret the fire of Gehenna literally what shall we do about Paul's statement in Rom. 12:20? 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty give him drink; for by so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.' Paul uses the same word for fire as Jesus did when he spoke of eternal fire. Yet no one would think of taking Paul's statement literally. Or, again, consider the use of fire in James 3:6 where he says, 'The tongue is a fire . . . staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and is set on fire by Gehenna'. Both these passages are obviously

- 94 -

using fire as a figure of speech which is consistent with the way fire is generally used in scripture.

Are the wicked destroyed?

In an article in the Australian Christian we were reminded that Joseph Pittman, one of the founding fathers of Australian Churches of Christ, claimed that scripture supported the ultimate destruction of the wicked rather than their eternal punishment. Let us look at the scriptures that support this view.

The words 'perish', 'destroy', and 'destruction' are often used to describe the destiny of the wicked. In John 3:16, the opposite of eternal life is not punish but perish. In Matt. 7:13, Jesus said the broad way leads to destruction. In Matt 10:28, Jesus tells us that we are to 'fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna'. In Luke 13:3, Jesus warns his hearers 'unless you repent you will all likewise 'perish'. In Acts 3:23, Peter tells his hearers that, 'every soul that does not listen to that prophet (Messiah) shall be destroyed from the people'.

In 1 Cor. 1:18, Paul says that, 'the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing'. In 2 Thess. 1:7-9, he says that the godless will 'suffer the punishment of eternal destruction'. In Phil. 3:19, he says of the enemies of Christ that 'their end is destruction'. We must surely give the words perish, destroy and destruction their normal meaning and not read into them ideas that are not there. There is plenty of scriptural evidence to support the belief that the punishment of the godless and the wicked is eternal in the sense that they perish forever.

Immortality is conditional

These passages raise the question of human immortality. There is a common belief that all people are immortal; that the godly live forever in God's presence and the godless are tormented forever in the fire of Gehenna. This idea of universal immortality comes from Greek philosophy, not from scripture. When Adam and Eve sinned their punishment was death and God drove them from the garden lest they should eat also of the tree of life and live forever in their sinful state.

Paul tells us that only God has immortality. 'The king of kings and Lord of lords who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light.' (1 Tim. 6:15-16) Paul speaks of 'Our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death

- 95 -

and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. (2 Tim. 1:10) If the godless lived on forever in Gehenna, evil would be indestructible. The belief in the immortality of the wicked is without scriptural support.

The good news of the gospel is that through Jesus Christ all people are given the option of becoming immortal. If a person does not take up that option they remain forever mortal. Not only will they experience physical death but after the judgement day they will suffer the second death and perish. They will be separated forever from God who alone has immortality.

When we strip away the various beliefs and rituals of the different denominations of Christendom we come down to one single belief all hold in common. It is that God offers mortal man eternal life and this immortality is made possible through the death and resurrection of his son, Jesus Christ. Provided we renounce our doubts and our disobedience and come to Christ as believing and committed disciples we can confidently rejoice in the secure hope of eternal life.

If it is true that Jesus intended Gehenna to symbolise the extinction of the wicked it would solve two other problems that have often exercised the minds of Christians. First, how can a Christian be happy in heaven knowing that a parent, husband or wife, child, or dear friend is suffering the torments of Gehenna eternally? In fact, how can God, who professes to love all his children, condemn some of them to suffer in a burning hell forever and ever? It is unthinkable and fortunately, unscriptural.

Second, what is the destiny of all those in our own cities and in the third world who have never heard or understood the gospel; do they also suffer the torments of hell? In both of these circumstances the problem is resolved if these nonbeliever do not live forever but experience the second death. They have had the privilege of life on this earth but unfortunately, they have missed out on the far more wonderful future God had planned for them. The ultimate punishment is to contemplate extinction.

Finally, we need to note and consider a familiar response to the idea that the wicked do not suffer in an eternal hell. It outrages our sense of justice. Some people want revenge. They don't want to see the wicked go unpunished. They want them to suffer in proportion to the suffering they may have caused others. We seem to forget that justice is the last thing any of us want for

- 96 -

ourselves; we want mercy and forgiveness, for we also are sinners deserving death.

God constantly declares that he is a merciful God. We are told that he delights in mercy. Ezekiel reminds us that God is not a sadist who takes pleasure in punishing us. 'As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live . . . for why will you die, O house of Israel.' It is only by God's grace that any of us have hope of eternal life, but for God's mercy we also would be among the condemned.

When we want the wicked to suffer for their sins we are in danger of filling the role of the unforgiving servant of Matt. 18, who was forgiven his huge debt but who refused to forgive his fellow servant. Jesus reproved him saying, 'You should have had mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you'. Let us leave the matter of passing sentence on sinners to God. If he declares that their punishment is to be the second death we should be content that his purpose of destroying evil totally and finally is fulfilled.

The fact that a person is condemned to extinction and misses out on what they might have had is punishment enough. In Luke 13, Jesus says, 'Many will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, "Lord open to us." He will answer . . . depart from me all you workers of iniquity! There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out'. (Luke 13:24-2, 8) What a graphic Jewish idiom Jesus uses for remorse; 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'. Could any punishment exceed this personal remorse and self-reproach?

Those who reject God and Jesus Christ are without a future. Surely that is the ultimate punishment. The greatest irony is that they could have shared in the life that is eternal but by unbelief, self-will, disobedience or just neglect, they never reached the point where they acknowledged God and gave him the love, respect and obedience which is his due.

I do not fear that my friends who are not committed Christians will be tortured forever in 'hell fire' but I do regret that they have not reached out to grasp the opportunity to be part of God's eternal plan and to participate in the wonder and glory of the Kingdom of God. Jesus likened the kingdom of God to a pearl of such great value that a person would gladly sell everything he owned to possess it.

Finally, I feel compelled to express my unease at the inadequacy of our knowledge about existence after death. I have presented the biblical teaching on the subject of hell as I understand it but it does not appear to fully square with either the reality of our human experience or with the grace of God. The arbitrary separation of individuals into "good' or 'bad', 'saved' or 'lost', 'redeemed' or 'rejected' categories ignores the reality that the poet Bobby Burns put so well when he said "There's so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us'. Nor does it sit easily with Jesus attitude to the non-religious people such as the woman of Samaria, Zacchaeus, the prostitute and the prodigal son. All we can hope to do is to clear away the unscriptural views that we have inherited from medieval mythology that present God as someone to be feared rather than the forgiving Father of the prodigal son parable.

- 97 -

Let us pray that we might do or say something or live in such a committed way that others will sense that they are missing something important and turn to Jesus who is the door that leads into the security of eternal life in a new society where love is the guiding principle.


Appendix on Luke 16:19-31

This story has puzzled Bible students because the imagery is of Gehenna but the setting is said to be Hades. In all the other places where Hades is mentioned in the New Testament it has the usual meaning of the state of death only. Here we have four features that are not elsewhere associated with Hades; namely, consciousness after death, immediate judgement, fiery torment and the separation of the righteous from the unrighteous prior to the Day of Judgment.

If we look at the context of this parable we will see that the whole of chapter 16 is about the right use of wealth. The chapter opens with a story about a dishonest servant who uses his master's wealth to make friends for the future. Jesus applied it by saying 'I tell you use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings' (v. 9) Then he added ' If you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches'? (v. 11).

Luke then comments that the Pharisees loved money and sneered at Jesus' remarks so he told them this second parable about the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus. The whole point of the story was to show the Pharisees that failure to use wealth for the relief of human need at their doorstep would bring on them the judgment of God. They would not be entrusted with 'the true riches'. He used graphic imagery about the after-life drawn from their own beliefs to make his point. His message was about money, not about some Pharasiac purgatory.

Dr David Powys in his thesis 'The Hermeneutics of Hell' suggests a solution to these problems by using a principle of interpretation that says that a passage can only be understood in the context of the culture and beliefs of its time. The Pharisees had developed a doctrine of postmortem compensation based on automatic reward and punishment immediately following death, with punishment depicted using Gehenna imagery. Their views made salvation entirely dependent on good works and left no place for the grace and mercy of God. This made Jesus' crucifixion unnecessary and the redemption of sinners impossible because destiny was fixed at death. The details of the story accord with Rabbinic teaching but are not found elsewhere in Jesus' teaching.

Dr Powys suggests that the story was not intended to give teaching about the afterlife, but that Jesus used the Pharisee's own beliefs in a rhetorical sense to show that God did not require observance of every tiny detail of Rabbinic law, but instead, required what was more important, namely, compassion towards the needy. The rich man is presented as a typical Pharisee who expects reward for his piety, but he finds that his belief in immediate reward on death has worked against him, because God's values are different from his. The story closes with Jesus' reminder that they had the teachings of Moses and the prophets, therefore, they should have known what God required.

No scripture can be properly understood unless it is interpreted in the light of its cultural context. We may be missing the whole purpose of the story if we focus on Jesus' comments about life after death and treat them as serious teaching about the afterlife, instead of seeing them as a satirical use of

- 98 -

Pharisaic beliefs, used with dramatic effect, to expose the Pharisee's false values. This interpretation would account for the unusual view of Hades, which is quite out of character with its use in other places.

 

- 99 -

11. Are we pre-selected for heaven?

This article was written in answer to the view that only certain people have been chosen by God for salvation. It is commonly called predestination. This teaching was widely accepted in Europe following the Reformation and is still floating around in Christian circles and sometimes becomes an issue for sincere Christians. It presents the writer's view of predestination and the 'once saved always saved' claim.

THE BIBLE CONTAINS many passages that speak of God choosing individuals and groups for a particular purpose and for special blessing. His choice indicates an ordering of events and a premeditated purpose which necessarily involves guiding or overruling our human wills so that the Divine will may be accomplished.

This raises the question of how this interaction of the Divine and human will is achieved and whether God or man decides an individual's destiny. The Bible contains some statements which, if taken in isolation, can be used to support the predestination of individuals for salvation, and other statements which make salvation dependent on our own response to the gospel; the one making God wholly responsible for an individual's salvation and the other making man wholly responsible. The purpose of this article is to examine the issue and look at the arguments for and against predestination.

There is an election by God that applies to Israel in the Old Testament

- 100 -

and to the church in the New Testament. We should note that this is the election of a group, not of individuals. But in addition to these group elections there is also the choice of individuals such as Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, Jesus, Paul and the twelve apostles. The choice of these individuals does not necessarily imply that there is a divinely appointed role ordained by God for every person.

We will first look at several of the key Bible passages so that the issue can be before us in the words of Scripture. We will briefly examine the history of Christian thought for and against predestination, as presented by some leading theologians; we will then look at other relevant Bible passages and seek to arrive at some consensus of interpretation of this intricate and paradoxical subject.

Key Bible passages on election

Three key passages provided the seedbed for the ideas that are generally referred to as the doctrine of predestination. Biblical quotations are from the Revised Standard Version (RSV).

1. Isaiah 6:9-10

'And he said, "Go, and say to this people: Hear and hear but do not understand: see and see but do not perceive." Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.' This passage is quoted by Jesus (Matt. 13:1415) and applied to his hearers who were spiritually dull, blind and deaf, and who did not respond to his spiritual teaching.

John also applies Isaiah's words to Jesus ministry. (Jn. 12:37-42) It should be noted that sometimes the hardening of their hearts is attributed to God and sometimes to themselves. (See Mark 8:18) Paul applies this same passage to his hearers (Acts 28:25-27) but he lays the blame on his hearers. He says that their hearts have become dull and they have closed their eyes.

2. Romans 8:28-30 and 9:6-24

These are the main passages on which the doctrine of predestination is based. Note three passages especially:

- 101 -

(a) Rom. 8:29-30 states, 'For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son . . . and those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified'.

(b) Rom. 9:10-13 states, 'when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, "The elder will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated"'.

(c) Rom. 11:8-9 states, 'Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day'.

3. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart referred to in Romans 9:17-18, and Exodus 3:19; 4:21; 7:3-4; 7:14; 8:15; 8:32; 9:34. We learn here that God knew beforehand that Pharaoh was hard hearted. (3:19) Some verses say that God hardened his heart but four times it is stated that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

There are many other passages that have a bearing on the subject of election because the election of Israel and the church are the central themes of both old and new Testaments but these key passages will suffice to lay the groundwork for our consideration of the subject.

The history of the doctrine of predestination

We now move from the scriptural statements to the interpretations that church thinkers and leaders have held on the subject of God's election. We immediately notice two new elements.

Christian theologians introduce their own non-biblical words and phrases to define their understanding of the biblical doctrines. As soon as this is done, the discussion moves away from scripture and the debate becomes centred on these humanly coined words and phrases.

For example, Augustine, in the 5th century began to emphasize the phrase, 'original sin'. He taught that 'the whole human race, even to the youngest infant is a "mass of perdition" and as such deserves the wrath of God.' This is

- 102 -

plainly attributing to scripture doctrines that are not taught in scripture.

The leaders of the Reformation fell into the same error. Calvin and his followers spoke much of the 'sovereignty' of God. The word 'sovereignty' does not occur anywhere in scripture in the original Hebrew or Greek texts or in the Authorised Version (AV), Revised Standard Version (RSV) or other older translations. It was introduced in Today's English Version (TEV) and the New International Version (NIV) translations in place of the usual term 'LORD God' as a translation of the names Yahweh (Jehovah) and Adhonay (Lord) when they occurred together. Neither means sovereign but because 'Lord' means one who has authority over others, it also has the connotation of a ruler or sovereign. But no sovereign exercises an authority that is 'irresistible' and it is stretching the meaning of 'Lord' too far to suggest that it means that God's will is irresistible. It is a questionable translation that does not have the support of most other translators. The ARV translation 'Lord Jehovah' is a more accurate translation.

They also coined such terms as 'total depravity', 'unconditional election', 'irresistible grace', and 'limited atonement', none of which are found in scripture, and they made these humanly devised terms the basis on which their doctrine of predestination was built. If we want to expound true biblical doctrines we should state them in biblical terms. By so doing we will avoid much confusion and argument and the tendency to drift into error.

The second element we note as soon as we begin to interpret scripture and restate it in our own terms is that honest scholars hold conflicting and opposing views. Thus we introduce divisive doctrines and prepare the way for divisions within the body of Christ. It is not so bad when our personal understanding of scripture is kept at the level of verbal discussion, but as soon as our views are written and circulated, they become the basis for counter interpretations and division. This is greatly accentuated when doctrines are discussed in a formal gathering of church leaders who then issue a statement of doctrine, which the assembled council approves. This official statement of beliefs becomes a creed and a measure of orthodoxy and test of heresy.

Such credal statements were formulated by the Synod of Dort in Holland in 1619 and by the Westminster Assembly in England in 1647-48. Both these church councils endorsed the particular view of divine election and predestination expounded by Calvin. It became the prevailing doctrine of election in the post-reformation period. Calvinism presents the case for

- 103 -

predestination in an extreme, but once widely accepted, form so we need to examine the case as he presented it.

Before we do this, it is important to illustrate how binding these creedal statements of church councils were on the people. Miguel Servetus was a Christian scholar who disagreed with Calvin's doctrines and also with certain points of the earlier church councils of Nicea and Chalcedon. Calvin had him arrested for heresy; he was tried, found guilty and was burned at the stake with Calvin's full consent and with the approval of most churchmen of the time.

This action, which to us was so obviously contrary to the spirit and example of Jesus, shows how wrong church leaders can be, and if they could be so sincerely wrong about this, they could also be sincerely wrong about their doctrinal opinions. Time has a way of sifting truth from error, and the majority of church leaders no longer endorse the extreme form of predestination adopted by the church councils of that age.

The five points of Calvinism on election

The following summary of the five points of Calvinism is based on a statement in an Appendix to the book Romans, An Interpretive Outline by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas. These five points were formally declared to be the scriptural doctrine of election by a representative church Synod held at Dort, Holland, in 1619. They are no longer accepted by most Christian scholars today, but are still largely adhered to by the Presbyterian church and the Reformed church, both of which acknowledge the theologians of the Dort and Westminster Assemblies as their spiritual ancestors.

1. Man's total depravity

Our wills are said to be in bondage to our evil natures. We are spiritually dead, blind and deaf. We are incapable of believing the gospel. Faith is not our response to the gospel, nor is it something man contributes to salvation. Faith itself is a gift from God; we cannot exercise it unless God implants faith in our heart. We can only wait to see if God will impart saving faith to us and give us the assurance that we are one of his elect.

2. Unconditional election

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rests solely on his own sovereign will. It is not dependent on us

- 104 -

exercising faith and repenting but is God's arbitrary choice. 'Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ'.

3. Limited atonement

'Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only'. His atoning death only applies to 'certain specified sinners'. 'Thus Christ's saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others.' God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. If we are not one of God's elect there is nothing we can do to achieve salvation. We will die in our sins.

4. Irresistible grace

'The Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation.' It is said that this inward call always results in conversion. 'God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.' We are not told how we may know if we are included among the elect; it is apparently due to a purely subjective experience in the realm of our feelings.

5. Perseverance of the saints

These chosen, called and redeemed elect persons are eternally saved. They will never fall away and be lost. Once they are saved they are always saved for they were chosen before the foundation of the world.

Evaluation of Calvinism

When we examine the scripture passages used to support these propositions we note a very important omission. No texts have been quoted that speak of man's responsibility. Only those texts that support God's role in election have been quoted. There are many other Bible passages which indicate that God's election is not effective without man's cooperation. These texts appear to have been totally disregarded for there is no attempt to reconcile them with the texts that support Calvinism. The Bible does not contradict itself. Its statements must all be capable of being harmonised and no doctrine can be called truly biblical unless it gives full weight to all the relevant scripture statements.

- 105 -

When, in the 5th century, Augustine first began to propound the view that children were born totally depraved, that adults were incapable of exercising saving faith, and that only those whom God arbitrarily chose as his elect would be saved, his views were challenged as unscriptural by the learned and highly respected monk, Pelagius.

Pelagius denied that we inherit 'original sin' from Adam and declared that our wills are free to obey God, therefore we ourselves choose whether we will be among the saved. Cassianus was another leader who opposed the predestination views of Augustine, saying, 'the will always remains free in man, and it can either neglect or delight in the grace of God'. So the nature of election was a live issue as early as the 5th century.

But Arminius, a professor of theology at Leyden, Holland, was the chief opponent of Calvin's theology in the 16th century. He believed that Calvin's doctrine of unconditional predestination was contrary to scripture. He believed that scripture taught that man had free will and could choose to accept or reject the grace of God offered in Christ. Such was the importance of church doctrine in those days that the whole of the Protestant Netherlands became involved.

The opponents of Calvinism formally protested against what they considered to be unscriptural doctrines. Forty-one leading churchmen drew up a statement setting out five main points where they considered Calvinism to be unscriptural. They called it the 'Remonstrance'.

They affirmed that scripture teaches, (1) that man possesses a free will and is capable of exercising faith and responding to the gospel. (2) That God, by his foreknowledge knew who would respond to the gospel, but it was entirely up to the individual whether he believed the gospel and obtained salvation. (3) That Christ made salvation possible for all men but it becomes effective only if we choose to accept it. (4) That God's grace is not irresistible but the Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who are willing. (5) That man's response is the determining factor in our salvation and if we turn away from Christ and live in disobedience to the known will of God, our place among the elect will be forfeited.

The Synod of Dort was called together to consider these five objections to Calvinism. Calvin's authority as a theologian was so great that it was still considered heresy to disagree with him. The Synod of Dort reaffirmed their support for Calvin's doctrines and replied to the 'Remonstrance' by formulating

- 106 -

the five points of Calvinism we enunciated earlier.

Texts contrary to Calvinism that relate to election

Augustine and Calvin stressed the important truth that God has a plan for his creation and that he is working out his purpose through human history. Paul's statement in Eph. 1:9-10 summarises this great truth. 'For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.'

All parties acknowledge this eternal divine purpose and that two groups, Israel and the church, have special significance in God's eternal plan. But verses 4-5 are interpreted differently by Calvinists and non-Calvinists. They read, '. . . he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.' Calvinists understand the words 'chose us' and 'destined us' to apply to individuals.

The more general interpretation is that the 'us' is plural and refers collectively to the whole company of believers. The church, using that word in its purest biblical sense, is chosen and destined by God, but as individuals we each choose whether or not we will be part of the chosen and destined company of believers. Non-Calvinists believe that the scriptures teach group election, not individual election. Paul often uses the words 'in Christ'. Those who have responded to the call of the gospel are said to be 'in Christ' and as such are chosen and destined to have a place in God's eternal plan.

We will now list a number of scriptures which are relevant to the question of election and which must be considered if we are to have a truly biblical understanding of this important subject. Note the responsibility on people to make a decision and the numerous passages that use the terms 'any one' and 'whoever', which makes the gospel invitation open to all people.

Deut. 30:15-19 'I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.'

Matt. 10:32 'So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven.'

Matt. 18:14 'So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.'

- 107 -

Luke 12:8 'everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man will also acknowledge before the angels of God.'

John 1:12 'But to all who received him, who believed in power to become children of God.'

John 3:15,16 'whoever believes in him may have eternal life . . . he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.'

John 3:19 'this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.'

John 5:24 'Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my ward and believes him who sent me, has eternal life.' v. 40 'you refuse to come to me that you may have life.'

John 6:40 'For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life.'

John 7:37 'If any one thirst let him come to me and drink.'

John 12:31 'And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.'

Acts 2:21 'whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

Acts 10:34-35 'Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'

Acts 17:30 'The times of this ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men, everywhere, to repent.'

Rom. 10:9 'If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved . . . for every one who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Titus 2:11 'For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.'

Hebrews 2:10 '. . . by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.'

Rev. 22:17 'The Spirit and the Bride say 'Come', and let him who hears say 'Come', and let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price.'

These texts make it very plain that we are capable of believing, repenting and choosing to obey God. We have noted that the words 'whoever' and 'every one' occur frequently. God has provided redemption through the death of his Son but it is up to us to avail ourselves of God's offer of forgiveness and

- 108 -

eternal life and to turn from sin to live a life of obedience. Exercising faith and choosing to repent and serve the Lord with a whole heart are not works that contribute anything to God's perfect work of redemption, which he provides through Christ. These responses to the gospel are simply the means by which we appropriate what God has provided 'in Christ'.

Reconciling God's election and man's free will

James Lindsay's article in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says; 'For the doctrine has needed to be purged of the historic inconsistencies, and fatal illogicalities, with which, in its older forms of presentation, it was often infected. This especially, in order that the doctrine may appear as grounded in reason and righteousness, not in arbitrariness and almighty caprice.'

There is no doubt that scripture teaches that believers are ordained, foreknown, called, predestined and the elect; but these terms always and only apply to those persons who are 'in Christ'. In Ephesians 1, Paul says that the Father 'has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing'. That 'he chose us in him before the foundation of the world'. 'In him we have redemption through his blood.' 'We who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory.' In Eph. 3:11, Paul says, 'This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him'.

Lindsay says, 'This helpful mode of viewing predestination as 'in Christ', and never outside him, had a place in religious thought at the Reformation time, as the famous (Lutheran) "Formula of Concord" shows . . . It must be carefully observed that nothing in Scripture points to any personal and inexorable predestination to reprobation, in any sense corresponding to the personal election to salvation just spoken of. The appeal of Scripture from first to last is to men as free.'

John Wesley did not hold or preach Calvin's doctrine. He understood God's foreknowledge to be intuitional and not directional. God did not decree or predestinate particular individuals for salvation. He believed that man was free to respond to, or reject, the offer of salvation in Christ.

This is the view that has motivated the leading evangelists of the 20th century as they have used organization, prayer and powerful preaching to offer all men salvation 'in Christ'. It is the true 'church', the body of Christ,

- 109 -

the company of believers and disciples who have responded to the gospel that constitutes the elect people of God who are predestined to inherit the future kingdom of God.

Calvinism's illogical and unscriptural features

In the statement by James Lindsay quoted earlier he stated that Calvinism had illogical and inconsistent features. We will now examine this charge.

1. It is impossible to escape the negative aspect of Calvin's doctrine of God's sovereign and arbitrary election of only some to salvation. This inevitably implies that the non-elects are predestined to reprobation! A reprobate is one who is 'cast off by God, hardened in sin, excluded from salvation' (Oxford Dictionary) This makes God immoral for he chooses some before they are born for blessing and others he rejects, irrespective of their moral characters. God becomes an arbitrary and capricious sovereign. This is totally inconsistent with the character of God given throughout the scriptures, where he is a just God rewarding the righteous and condemning the wicked. This doctrine of reprobation is as reprehensible as it is inescapable and unscriptural. It is an unpardonable slur on God's character.

2. The doctrine of total depravity is equally unscriptural. It is linked with the doctrine of 'original sin' which is also a perversion of scriptural teaching. It was on the basis of this teaching that the unscriptural practice of infant 'baptism' was introduced. Since it was believed that an infant was born guilty, it was baptised in infancy lest it should die before reaching adulthood. This resulted in proxy baptism and had the effect of giving baptism an efficacy in itself, apart from the biblical prerequisites of faith and repentance. This is the heresy of baptismal regeneration and depersonalised salvation. It gave a ritual saving power, whereas scriptural salvation is dependent on the exercise of faith in Christ and repentance towards God as a personal response to the work of Christ at Calvary.

A careful perusal of Genesis 2 and 3; Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15 shows that it is the consequence of Adam's sin, that is, death, that is inherited, not guilt. Paul says, 'Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned'. (Rom. 5:12) Paul is apparently referring to physical death here. He says in vv. 18-19, 'One man's

- 110 -

trespass led to condemnation for all men' and 'by one man's disobedience many were made sinners'. In 1 Cor: 15 he says, 'As in Adam all die'. All men inherited the fallen nature of Adam and Eve and all have exercised their power to doubt and disobey God, thus becoming sinners.

The Bible teaches that guilt cannot be transferred or inherited. In Ezekiel 18:20, we read, 'The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself'. We are not born with the taint of 'original sin' that needs to be expunged by a mere ritual but we do inherit a fallen nature and total freedom of will that leads to disobedience and sin.

The security of all who are 'in Christ'

It is important that we should understand that our eternal salvation is not dependent on our goodness or righteousness. If this were possible Jesus need not have died for our sins. We are all entirely dependent on the grace of God which is mediated to us through the death of his Son. We need to be mindful that God is a just God and a holy God. He will not absolve the guilty. He pronounces the whole human race as guilty in his sight. The future judgement of all mankind is clearly taught in Scripture.

But God is also a merciful God and he delights to pardon all that repent and turn to him. Jesus death is representative for all men. He took our place and our punishment and is therefore able to offer all men forgiveness and eternal life. We appropriate this by our faith in his atoning death and by the action of our will in repentance. Our assurance of salvation rests on Jesus, our redeemer, and on him alone.

God's promise of salvation, as all his promises, is tied to certain conditions. If we meet those conditions, God's promises apply to us personally. With our minds we believe the gospel, with our will we repent and resolve to do the will of God so far as we are able, we submit to the ritual requirement of baptism and we express our love and devotion by participating with other disciples in worship and in the Lord's Supper. We are then part of 'the church which is his body, we are 'in Christ', and as Jesus himself said, 'I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand'. (John 10:28) See also 1 Cor. 10:12-13 and Hebrews 4:14-16

This is my personal understanding of the gospel and I believe that it is a

- 111 -

fair representation of the gospel as understood by the evangelical churches today.

 

- 112 -

12. Has God rejected the Jews?

This article was published by the Federal Literature committee of Churches of Christ in 1975 as Pamphlet 238 and is reprinted here because of the continuing interest of Christians in the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

Understanding Israel's national destiny

THE MODERN STATE of Israel is a fact of history, which has religious, as well as political, significance. It has theological implications which, generally, have not been as seriously studied by Christians, as it deserves. Many believe that it also has prophetic significance. In order to understand present day events in the life of the nation of Israel it is necessary to trace God's dealings with the people of Israel from the beginning. There is no doubt that Israel, as a nation, has special significance. It is impossible to understand the present State of Israel apart from the Bible. The destiny of Israel can be summarised under five words--covenant, providence, judgement, restoration and redemption.

Covenant

The Jewish people have been called the people of the covenant, and this is an apt description, because their relationship with God, as a nation, is unique among the nations of the earth. In Genesis 12, we read of the call of Abraham

- 113 -

and the sevenfold promise God made to him. It was without conditions. It reads:

I will make you into a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And I will make your name great,
And you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
And whoever curses you I will curse;
And all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.

God added a further promise after Abraham had entered the land of Canaan. He said, 'To your descendants I will give this land'. (12:7) In chapter 15, God took these promises a stage further by turning them into a covenant: 'On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham'. (15:8)

In chapter 17, God again refers to this covenant. He says, 'I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant . . . and I will give to you and your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God'. (17:1-8) God commanded Abraham to observe the ritual of circumcision as an outward sign and seal of the covenant. Following Abraham's obedience in offering up Isaac, God confirmed his covenant with an oath. (22:16) This oath is referred to in Hebrews 6:13-18 and it emphasises the permanent nature of God's covenant with Israel.

This covenant has an important bearing on present Israel-Arab relationships. Abraham's son, Ishmael, born to his Egyptian concubine, Hagar, was expressly excluded from the covenant by God. (17:18-21; 21:9-13) The sons of Abraham's second wife, Keturah, were also excluded by Abraham prior to his death. (25:16) Esau, one of Abraham's grandsons, was excluded by his own choice. (25:27-34)

Isaac, the only son of Abraham and his wife Sarah, was the sole heir to the covenant God made with Abraham. When Esau sold his birthright, Jacob became the sole heir in the third generation and the founder of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Isaac's half brothers, Ishmael and the sons of Abraham's second wife Keturah, and his son Esau, are the ancestors of the Arab people. The present Arab-Israeli conflict is a family feud. The disinherited members of Abraham's

- 114 -

family are still contesting their founder's inheritance thirty-eight centuries later. Abraham's will must be the oldest unsettled estate in history. We must not forget that God wrote the terms of that will.

Let us now glance backwards and note the progression of God's dealings with Abraham. First, there is the call to obey God in faith. This is followed by the promises of chapter 12. These are made permanent by a binding covenant, which is confirmed by an oath. It is quite evident that God had some great purpose and destiny for Abraham's descendants who were to become the nation of Israel. Because of this covenant relationship with God, the Jewish nation is unique among the nations of the earth.

God stated his purpose thus: 'This people have I formed for myself; they shall show forth my praise.' (Isaiah 43:21) Moses declared, 'You are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth'. (Deut. 7:6) At the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai God also declared, 'You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' (Exodus 19:6)

The final step in the covenant relationship between God and Israel was at Mt. Sinai where Abraham's descendants became a nation. It was here that God set forth the detailed terms of the covenant. God gave them to Moses who presented them to the people. 'All the people answered together and said, All that the Lord has spoken we will do.' So the covenant that began between God and Abraham now became a national covenant confirmed by all the people in a solemn ceremony at the foot of Mt. Sinai.

It should be noted that the renewal of the covenant at Sinai was significant in another way. For the first time, God introduced laws and the nation was tested in obedience. The laws introduced a conditional element. For obedience God would bless his people; for disobedience he would punish them. From this date onwards Israel's prosperity would be directly related to her obedience. Disobedience would not affect their covenant bond with God but it would affect their enjoyment and prosperity.

The conditional covenant of the law, which was introduced through Moses, was abolished following the death of Jesus. (See the book of Hebrews.) It did not affect the prior covenant God had made with Abraham. Paul, writing to the Galatians, says, 'The law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance is by law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to

- 115 -

Abraham by a promise'. (Gal. 3:17) Paul here makes a distinction between 'the law' and 'the promise'. The unconditional promises made to Abraham still apply to Israel, but the law, which prepared the way for the coming of the Messiah, has been superseded.

Providence

The second word which helps us understand Israel's national destiny is the word 'providence'. Providence means the protecting power of God over his people. If it had not been for God's providence, Israel would not have survived to fulfil the destiny God had planned for the nation. Israel's experience, following God's promises, is a great lesson for us today because, from the moment of God's call, everything seemed to go wrong. It was only by God's divine power that Abraham's descendants were preserved again and again.

At first, God's whole plan was threatened by Sarah's childlessness, but God miraculously intervened to make possible the birth of Isaac. Then, soon after settling in the Promised Land of Canaan a drought and famine threatened their survival. Again God intervened, and through the preservation and remarkable elevation of one of Jacob's sons, Joseph, to the position of Prime Minister of Egypt, food and sanctuary were provided in that fertile land.

In Egypt, they came under the power of Pharaoh and became his slaves. There was no human prospect of them being rescued from this enslaved state, but God again intervened and by His own mighty power brought his people out again. Their suffering had forged a bond between them that nothing else could have done. They were now a nation as God had promised.

But their freedom brought a new threat. Their very existence was threatened by the barrenness of the wilderness. Again God preserved them by the provision of water and manna for a period of forty years. Without God's provision they would have perished in the wilderness.

The transition from the wilderness to the land of Canaan again brought a threat to their survival. When they were about to be tested in battle, God showed them that his power alone could preserve them. He gave them the strategy for their first conquest at Jericho. From a military point of view, it was a ridiculous strategy. It depended entirely on God's intervention. In this way, God showed his people that any victories they would make would be by his power, not their military prowess. Jericho became a new symbol of divine providence. This has been typical of the whole of Israel's history, including

- 116 -

the establishment and survival of the modern State of Israel against overwhelming odds. No people has had their very existence threatened so often and been as often delivered by the manifest power of God.

After some years of national life in the land God had promised would be their everlasting possession, they were defeated and deported by the Babylonians and their survival was again in question. The book of Esther tells the story of the attempt by Haman to exterminate the Jews throughout the whole 127 provinces over which Babylon ruled. Was it mere chance that the Queen, Esther, was Jewish and in the most influential position possible to plead for her people's survival? Surely God was working through Esther to save his people and fulfil his promises that through Israel all nations would be blessed.

Their national life was restored when Cyrus, king of Persia, permitted the exiles to return, and Ezra and Nehemiah rebuilt the spiritual and political life of the nation. But despite the brief period of independence under the Maccabees, the nation became spiritually decadent and they were driven from their land again by the Romans in A.D. 70. Thus began the long exile, which lasted until 1948. During this exile they were scattered throughout Europe where their survival was periodically threatened by banishments, pogroms, conversion and assimilation. Some governments brought in restrictive legislation and created the Jewish ghettos where they were compelled to live in poverty, but strangely, ensured the survival of their religion and culture, thus saving their distinctiveness.

Did God know that Hitler would arise to become a modern Haman? Surely he did. Was not Theodore Hertzl, the founder of modern Zionism, a man of destiny? He prepared the way for a refuge for the survivors from Nazi Germany many years before anyone was aware of such a need. Was it by chance that Britain supported the creation of a Jewish colony in Palestine following the First World War? When the creation of a separate State of Israel was proposed, was it mere chance that the highest legal authority in the world, the United Nations, gave it legal approval, even Russia voting for its creation? And when eight Arab armies attacked the newborn State, which had very few weapons, was it not a miracle that they survived? Has not the world wondered at the subsequent Israeli wars in which victory should have gone to her enemies on a military estimation?

Throughout Israel's history, God's honour has been at risk. Despite the

- 117 -

Jews' periodic unfaithfulness they are God's covenant people and God has personally guaranteed their preservation. Through Isaiah he said, 'No weapon that is formed against you shall prosper.' (Is. 54:17) Without God's call and covenant, Israel would never have become a nation. Without God's providence and protection, she would never have survived past and present threats to her existence.

We will understand God's protection of Israel better if we look at some of the promises he made in this connection. After predicting their exile, Moses quoted God as saying, 'Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God'. (Lev. 26:44) Later, God spoke through Jeremiah and said, 'I will make a full end of all the nations among whom I scattered you, but I will not make a full end of you'. (Jer. 30:11)

It is evident that the covenant needed God's providence to ensure that its promises would be fulfilled. So, despite all the vicissitudes of their national life, God was watching over his ancient people, Israel. He did not break the covenant of blessing, which he made with Abraham. God is faithful.

Judgement

We noted in the passage from Leviticus, quoted above, that God placed great stress on his covenant, which he would not break despite Israel's disobedience. This is repeatedly emphasised through the prophets. Let us not think then, that in permitting the first and second exile, God abandoned his covenant. Judgement is an essential part of man's training. Israel had to be taught that God was a holy God. At that time there was no connection between religion and morality. The pagan nations around Israel sacrificed their children to their gods and practised immorality as part of their worship ritual. God taught the world through Israel that he demanded social justice and personal integrity in those who worshipped him. He did this through punishing those who broke his moral code.

In time, Israel drifted away from God, worshipping the idols of the surrounding nations and following their pagan practices, including child sacrifice. As a result God withdrew his blessing and protection and their national life was broken up. The nation was defeated in war and taken captive to Babylon. God linked suffering and disobedience in the prophetic utterance of Moses.

- 118 -

'If you are not careful to do all the words of this law then the Lord will bring on you and your offspring extraordinary afflictions . . . you shall be plucked off the land which you are entering to take possession of it and the Lord will scatter you among all peoples from one end of the earth to the other . . . and among these nations you shall find no ease, and there shall be no rest for the sole of your foot . . . your life shall hang in doubt before you night and day.' (Deut. 28:58)

God gives the reason for this sad exile: 'All the nations will ask: "Why has the Lord done this to this land? Why this fierce burning anger?" And the answer will be: "It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the Lord, the God of their father".' (Deut. 29:24-25) God has used Israel as an object lesson to show all nations that he will not tolerate sin even in his own covenant people whom he chose for himself. But God shows his constant love in that, following these judgement passages, there are always promises of forgiveness if the nation turns to him again.

Before judgement fell, God always sent his prophets to warn the people. The passionate appeals of men like Isaiah and Jeremiah teach us much about the character of God. Before the great exile that began in A.D. 70, God sent his own Son, and by signs and miracles, as well as by preaching and calls to repentance, he tried to turn the leaders of the nation back to himself. But they refused to heed even the loving appeal of a passage like Luke 13:34-35.

Even in judgement, God dealt with his people in love. Through his prophets Hosea and Zechariah, God likened his relationship to Israel to that of husband and wife. Nevertheless, God does not contemplate divorcing his 'wife' for her unfaithfulness, but rather looks forward to her return to him and the restoration of their spiritual union. 'Then the angel said, Shout out this message from the Lord of Hosts, 'Don't you think I care about what has happened to Judah and Jerusalem? I am as jealous as a husband for his captive wife. I am very angry with the heathen nations sitting around at ease for I was only a little displeased with my people but the nations afflicted them far beyond my intentions.' (Zech. 1:14-15, Living Bible) For other related passages the reader is referred to Jer. 3:1-11; Ezek. 16:23; Hosea 2:3, 9:1; Isaiah 54:5, Jer. 3:20.

God was always careful to give his people hope in their exile. Many are the promises given through the prophets of a future restoration. Here is one from Hosea 3:4-5: 'The Lord loves the people of Israel though they turn to

- 119 -

other gods . . . the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king; and they shall come in fear to the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.' This phrase 'in the latter days' literally means 'in the end of days' and is the usual term for the days of the Messiah.

The purpose of Israel's exile and sufferings is given by the prophet Malachi. God says he is refining his people as silver and gold is refined. He is removing the impurities so that only the pure metal remains. This will finally be achieved by Messiah. 'He will sit as a refiner and purifier of the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the Lord.' (Malachi 3:3)

Through the prophet Zechariah, God calls his people prisoners of hope. What a wonderful phrase! 'Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope; today I declare that I will restore to you double.' (Zech. 9:12) Yes, God does judge his own covenant people to teach them, and all the world, that he is a holy God who will not tolerate sin; he is a jealous God who will not share Israel's love with other gods. But he judged them in love and with promises of restoration and hope. How gracious is the Lord and greatly to be praised.

Restoration

The very survival of the Jewish people throughout the centuries has been so contrary to the usual rise and fall of nations that students of history have stopped and wondered. One such was the Russian historian Nicholas Berdyaev who wrote, 'I remember how the materialistic interpretation of history . . . broke down in the case of the Jews . . . according to the materialistic and positivist criterion, this people ought long ago to have perished. Its survival is a mysterious and wonderful phenomena demonstrating that the life of this people is governed by a special predetermination transcending the processes of adaptation expounded by the materialistic interpretation of history'.

If God has indeed preserved them through the centuries, he has done so for a purpose. The people of Israel not only have a wonderful past history; they also have a future in the purposes of God. Part of that purpose is their physical restoration to nationhood and the return of the exiles to the land God gave to their fathers. The other part of God's purpose is their spiritual restoration to himself through the Messiah. There are countless passages that

- 120 -

promise the physical restoration of the nation to the land. Some were written long before the first captivity took place. (See Deut. 30:1-6)

There is an interesting prophecy in Jeremiah 31:35-36 which not only assures Israel's survival but also its nationhood. God draws attention to the sun, the moon and the stars and says, 'If these ordinances depart from before me says the Lord, then shall the seed of Israel cease from being a nation before me for ever'. In the same chapter God says, 'It shall come to pass like as I have watched over them to pluck up and to break down and to throw down and to destroy and to afflict, so will I watch over them to build and to plant says the Lord'. (Jeremiah 31:28)

Probably the most direct and detailed prophecy is given through Ezekiel in chapters 36-39. Here, the separate individual Jews scattered throughout the nations are likened to the bones of a body. God breathes on them and they come together to form a body and God gives the body life. This is a vision of the people of Israel in exile. The body is the body politic. The vision portrays the re-gathering of individual Jewish people to be reunited into an organized nation in the land of Israel. Ezekiel predicts that following their return to nationhood they will be attacked by hostile powers but God will save them from destruction.

Some Bible scholars believe that all these Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled when the Babylonian exiles returned and established their national life again in 536 B.C. but this view has some real difficulties. It seems to this writer that there are features of the prophecies that were not fulfilled at the time and which fit more readily into the present return of this century.

1. The magnitude of the present return: At the return from Babylon only 50,000 people came back to the land of Israel. This present return has now exceeded 3,000,000. That first exile lasted only 70 years at the most. This last exile has lasted for nineteen centuries. Since God took such a personal interest in Israel's future in former days, has he no longer any interest in the destiny of the people he professes to love? That is unthinkable. It would seem strange indeed, and quite inconsistent with God's professed love for Israel and his great stress on the covenant with Abraham, if he took no further interest in his ancient covenant people following their rejection of Jesus. We believe that the Ezekiel prophecies have a present-day application. It is not surprising that they were read over the new Israeli radio station on 14 May 1948,

- 121 -

the day the third Commonwealth of Israel began and the national life of Israel was restored.

2. In Isaiah 11:11, God said through his prophet 'In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant which is left of his people . . . He will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth'. The phrase 'in that day' is a time guide; what day does it refer to? The Wycliffe commentary says of this passage, 'The Messianic kingdom will be ushered in by a second restoration of the Jews which clearly excludes reference to the return under Zerubbabel'. The linking of this return with the time of Messiah and the explicit reference to it as a second return seems to make this a prophecy of this present return. The phrase, 'to recover the remnant that is left', seems to be especially applicable to those who survived the Nazi holocaust.

3. The restored nation is to be ruled over by David their king. This is an accepted Messianic reference. This did not happen following the first return. Neither has it happened yet following this return. But it could be a sign of the near return of Christ.

4. Amos 9:14-15 predicts a return from which there will be no further exile. 'I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them . . . I will plant them upon their land and they shall never again be plucked up out of the land which I have given them, says the Lord your God.'

5. This restoration will take place in 'the latter days'. This excludes this prophecy from applying to the return from Babylon. The Cambridge Bible commentary says that Ezekiel is here referring to an event in the far distant future. The first return took place within one generation of Ezekiel's writing. There has never been an invasion of the magnitude pictured in these chapters. This momentous event must be still in the future. The Cambridge Bible commentary says, 'This invasion of God has long been predicted. It shall be the occasion of a final manifestation of himself by Jehovah to creation and the nations which shall inspire universal awe, and leave in the minds of all mankind the knowledge of Jehovah, and that which he is.'

6. This restoration will be followed by a national repentance and God's Spirit will indwell his people. (See Ezek. 36:24-25; & Jer. 31:27-33)

- 122 -

Here, the physical and spiritual restoration are depicted as following each other. 'I will take you from among the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land . . . a new heart I will give you and a new spirit I will put within you . . . you shall be my people and I will be your God.'

Following the return from Babylon, the spiritual life of the nation was restored under Ezra, but it gradually declined into a narrow legalism. The spiritual and political life of the nation just prior to the time of Jesus was sad indeed. Israel at that time was not indwelt by the Spirit of the Lord.

We must not forget that Jesus said that the exile that would take place following his death would not be permanent. Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled. (Luke 21:24) In this brief statement Jesus states that, (1) Jerusalem is to come under Gentile control. (2) This period of Gentile domination he called 'The times of the Gentiles'. (3) The times of the Gentiles is of limited duration; it extends 'until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled'.

The disciples wanted more details, and following Jesus' resurrection they asked him if he now intended to restore the kingdom to Israel. Jesus replied, 'It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has fixed by his own power'. This tells us that Israel's national future is to remain a mystery during the church age. God has fixed times and seasons for Israel as a nation but he has not revealed them to us. Just as the formation of the international church was a 'mystery' which God had but dimly revealed to national Israel (See Eph. 3:9), so Jesus said to his disciples, 'it is not for you to know', when he was questioned about his plans for national Israel.

Many Bible students believe that this present restoration of Israel's national life is a fulfilment of these Bible prophecies. If this is so, we are living in exciting and momentous days. It is evidence of God's reality, presence and power. It indicates that the 'times of the Gentiles', and therefore the church era, is nearly ended, and hence the return of Christ is probably imminent. This seems to fit in with many non-biblical circumstances that prevail at the present time.

On purely humanistic grounds, it is clear that the world is rapidly approaching a crisis point. The word 'crisis' can properly be applied to population growth; world ecology including diminished resources of raw materials, energy,

- 123 -

and food; pollution; law and order; military confrontation and so on. But those who trust in God and believe his word need fear none of these things. Jesus spoke of many signs that would precede his coming. They are enough to strike fear into our hearts but Jesus saw them as signs of hope rather than fear. He said, 'Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing nigh'. (Luke 21:28)

Redemption

Under this heading, we are considering Israel's spiritual restoration. We have already mentioned certain prophecies that refer to this. In these, God is referring to a day when the legalism of the laws of Moses will be replaced by the inner leading of God's Spirit.

We must include in this discussion of redemption, those from among the Gentile nations who have turned to the God of Israel and trusted his most famous prophet, his Son, Jesus. Jesus preached only to Jewish audiences but in his very first message he spoke of those of other nations who had trusted God and served him. He was suggesting that people of other nations seemed more ready to serve God than his own people, Israel. His hearers tried to kill him right then. He later said, 'I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also and they will hear my voice. So there shall be one flock and one Shepherd'. (John 10:16) These other sheep are those who would believe in Jesus from all the nations of earth. He later sent his apostles to be his witnesses to all nations. So the church has been gathered out of all nations.

Does God at the present time have two chosen people? I believe that he does; his national people Israel, and his international people, the church. We have noted that Jesus said that his two 'flocks' would be merged into one flock under one Shepherd, the Messiah. Ezekiel had predicted this. 'I will set up over them one Shepherd, My servant David.' (Ezek. 34:23)

The Messiah is to be the unifying factor for these two groups. Jesus apparently did not expect his rejection by the Jewish people to be final. In his last statement to the nation he said, 'Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" '. The Messiah is seen as the good Shepherd by both Israel and the church.

- 124 -

In Romans chapters 9 to 11, Paul considers the relationship between national Israel and the church. He certainly does not regard national Israel as finished, nor their place in the purpose of God ended. He says, 'As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable'. (Rom. 11:28-29) Their national election still stands, their call to be God's people is not revoked, and the gift of Canaan is still theirs to retain. Above all, they are still beloved by God.

Paul reminds us of their great heritage. 'They are Israelites and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh is the Christ.' (Rom. 9:4) Paul answers the question some theologians are still asking; 'Has God rejected his people? And answers 'By no means!' He points out that those Jews who believed Jesus to be the Messiah were a spiritual remnant and it was always through a faithful remnant, not the whole nation, that God's promises and purposes were fulfilled. He said, 'Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel'. (Rom. 9:6)

But Paul also anticipates that more than just the Jewish believers in Jesus will be saved. This will not fulfil the promises concerning the nation. He says, 'And so all Israel will be saved'. What does he mean by this? The International Critical Commentary commenting on this statement, says, 'The whole context clearly shows that it is the actual Israel of history that is referred to . . . It cannot be interpreted either of the spiritual Israel, as of Calvin, or the remnant according to the election of grace, or such Jews who believe, or all who to the end of the world shall turn to the Lord. 'All' must be taken in the proper meaning of the word: Israel as a whole, Israel as a nation, but not necessarily including every individual Israelite'.

In chapter 11, Paul anticipates some time in the future when the nation will be spiritually restored. He speaks of their 'full inclusion'. He says, 'If their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean'. He anticipates their 'acceptance'. He says, 'If their rejection means the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead'. (Romans 11:15) He speaks of them being 'grafted back into their own olive tree'. Using the figure of an olive tree for Israel, he says, 'some branches were broken off'. The olive tree was not cut down or uprooted and destroyed as some say. Only some branches were broken off; the trunk remained

- 125 -

and other branches were grafted on. These are the Gentile believers in Messiah Jesus, the international church.

Paul gives a timely warning to Gentile Christians. He says, 'Do not become proud but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you . . . you stand fast only through faith'. (Romans 11:20-21) Then he adds a word of hope for national Israel, saying, 'The others (Israel) if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree'. (Romans 11:23- 24) By using the terms 'full inclusion', 'acceptance' and 'grafting back', Paul clearly anticipates a time when Israel will come to faith in Jesus as Messiah and both the church and national Israel will be one in their loyalties.

Paul says that this partial hardening of the nation of Israel will be only 'until the full number of the Gentiles come in'. (Rom. 11:25-32) From this, we learn to expect a small response from Jews to the gospel during the lifetime of the church, but when the church age is over, Israel's spiritual awakening will take place. Their spiritual restoration is also anticipated in verse 31. 'They have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy. The Living Bible translation makes the meaning clearer. 'Once you (Gentiles) were rebels against God, but when the Jews refused his gifts God was merciful to you instead. And now the Jews are the rebels, but some day they, too, will share in God's mercy upon you.'

The whole tenor of this passage in Romans is one of hope for the future spiritual restoration of Israel as a nation. We must not expect details for we remember that Jesus said, 'It is not for you to know . . . ' But if we recall Jesus' final word of judgement to the nation of Israel we will remember that the word 'until' also contains a message of hope. He said, 'You will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'. Jesus surely expects to hear this someday from his own nation.

Those of us who are witnessing these events taking place could well be witnessing the fulfilment of these Bible prophecies. We need to awake to faith, for Jesus is coming again to judge the whole world. The Bible tells us that he will destroy Satan and banish evil. He will establish the Kingdom of God. He invites us to turn to him now and acknowledge him as Lord. Maybe we should be more concerned with our own personal destiny than with the

- 126 -

study of the prophetic scriptures that relate to Israel.

 

- 127 -

13. God, why me?

SUFFERING IS the most common experience of the human race. We all experience it in some degree and the almost universal response is 'Why?' The 'why' is usually associated with two related questions: GOD why? and 'Why ME? Nobody has a total answer, but some things can be said that may prove helpful when we are crying out in anguish at the loss that has befallen us. Our deep sense of loss may be due to many different causes such as an accident, a natural disaster, the loss of a job, a broken relationship, a deformed child, a serious illness or the loss of a loved one.

The first question we often ask is 'Why me?' It is a very natural question because it seems that we are the only one affected; everybody else seems to be living a normal life. This is because we are individuals. Humans are not like a flock of birds or a school of fish that move in perfect unison. We are each born individually, we have individual experiences at different times, we develop an individual identity and we die as individuals. So when things happen to us, they don't generally happen to others at the same time. Similar experiences befall them but at other times. Fate has not singled us out; it is only the moment that is unique, not the experience. The apparent uniqueness of our experience is only an illusion. Others have their times when the normal enjoyment of life is overshadowed by sorrow. As John Donne said, 'Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee'. We all experience our personal times of sorrow. We are not alone.

There is a danger lurking in the question 'Why me?' It is the danger that

- 128 -

we may develop an attitude of self-pity. Some degree of self-pity in the early stages is almost inevitable, but if we allow it to become habitual it will prevent us from adjusting to the loss we have experienced. Self-pity is a very destructive emotion. Life may never be the same again but life must and does go on, and it is important that we adjust to our new circumstances. To readjust we must look outward to new prospects and not inward to dwell on the past.

A second question some ask is 'God why? 'Where there is a belief in God it inevitably raises the question of how God relates to the circumstance that is causing us sorrow. There is a general feeling that if this is God's world he is responsible for everything that happens in it. Events demand explanations and when there is no satisfactory explanation, especially at the tragic death of a loved one, people will often say, 'It was God's will'. There is no justification for such a statement. There is often a lot of what might be called Islamic fatalism ('It is the will of Allah') mixed up with our Christian beliefs. Perhaps it is a carry-over from the doctrine of deterministic predestination that was popular in the early reformation period. But it is not good biblical doctrine. God does not send suffering. This leads us to a discussion of the wider subject of the relationship between the authority of God and the freedom we enjoy as individuals. There are two main causes of suffering. They are our freedom and our mortality.

Personal freedom is a major cause of human suffering. We are told in the Bible that God made man in his own image. God does not have a physical image so this refers to God's nature. God is a free, creative Spirit who acts and creates as he chooses. When God made the animals he gave them limited freedom. They were programmed by instinct to behave in certain ways. Bees and ants are programmed to behave as they do, birds build nests and make annual migrations by instinct, salmon and eels follow an inbuilt instinct when they migrate to spawn; but humans are different.

God conferred on Adam and Eve and their descendants the power of personal choice. We have the freedom to live creatively and to behave, as we will, even if our behaviour is contrary to God's intention and revealed will. By granting us this power of choice, God relinquished his control over our behaviour. The theologians have contributed to our confusion by declaring that God is sovereign and omnipotent (all-powerful). God is potentially

- 129 -

omnipotent but he is not actually omnipotent in the area of human behaviour. When he delegated freedom of choice to human beings he ceased to be responsible for human actions. We must accept that responsibility for ourselves. This is the cause of most human suffering. The enormous physical and emotional suffering in times of war, the horrors of genocide, the emotional suffering of racism and the suffering brought about by poverty and famine are all the result of human decisions. We cannot dump all this guilt on God when we know that all these social evils are caused, or could be prevented, by humans. We may ask 'Why?', but not, 'Why God?'.

In his book, When Bad Things Happen To Good People, Harold Kushner quotes the following prayer by Jack Riemer:

We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end war;
For we know that You have made the world in a way
That man must find his own way to peace
Within himself and with his neighbour.
We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end starvation;
For You have already given us the resources
With which to feed the entire world
If we would only use them wisely.
We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to root out prejudice
For You have already given us eyes
With which to see the good in all men
If we would only use them rightly.
We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end despair,
For You have already given us the power
To clear away slums and to give hope
If we would only use our power justly.
We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end disease,
For You have already given us great minds
With which to search out cures and healing,
If we would only use them constructively.
Therefore we pray to You instead, O God,
For strength, determination, and will-power,
To do instead of just pray,
To become instead of merely to wish.

Before we blame God for giving humans this frightening power of deciding

- 130 -

how they will behave towards each other, we should consider the alternatives. There are only two. The Creator could have controlled humans to prevent them from making socially harmful choices; in this case they would have been mere puppets or robots, programmed like the animals. To rid the world of suffering caused by human choices, we would have to forfeit our freedom to choose and create. Is this what we want? God took a risk in giving us freedom. It has been a two-edged sword. It has produced great goodness; loving, caring and self-sacrificing actions. It has also produced great evil; power-loving, ruthless, cruel, uncaring, selfish actions. All the social evil in the world has been created by human choices for which we must accept full responsibility. We cannot say 'God why?' unless we are asking, 'Why did you make us thus?'

The other major cause of suffering comes from our mortality. We suffer the physical conditions of disasters, disease, decay and death. We develop strong attachments to places, possessions, and people. We develop a special loving relationship with our parents, siblings, close friends, and especially with our life partner and the children we bring into the world. When we are young we feel fit and strong and we live for the present. It hardly occurs to us that some day we might suffer from an accident, a disease, physical deterioration and eventually death. Fortunately we have the ability to enjoy each day without being troubled by the thought that any of these troubles could befall us. The same is true of our relationships. We are all familiar with the classic love story that ends with the words, And they lived happily ever after'. That is the way we want life to be. We feel that life should always be good and enjoyable and we resent it when something happens that shatters the good life.

If we are suddenly involved in an accident, or diagnosed as having a serious illness, or confronted with the death of a loved one, our expectations and reality do not match up. Our first reaction is to cry out, 'Why?' It slowly begins to dawn on us that we are having a crash course in reality. We have been brought face to face with our mortality. Our life on this earth is both vulnerable and temporary. We begin to see that our earlier expectations about the good life were immature and unrealistic. As we come to terms with our mortality our values begin to change. We begin to appreciate and value every day, every landscape and sunset, and especially every friendship. Life can actually become richer and more meaningful.

- 131 -

A friend of mine was in the prime of life when he suffered a serious car accident. He has come back from the brink of death to a very limited life that includes regular therapy, a wheel chair and a walking stick. Yet, after a year of adjusting to his new limited lifestyle, he told me that his life is richer now than it was before the accident. The very events that deprive us of something physical that we value also help us to appreciate the spiritual side of life and Jesus' promise of a life beyond this earthly experience. Every passing year of our earthly life sees us gradually moving from the physical to the spiritual. As our physical powers diminish the things of the mind and the spirit become ever more meaningful. In retrospect, the events that were tragedies to us at the time gave depth to our characters and probably contributed more to our spiritual maturity than the good times.

Instead of asking 'why', we begin to ponder 'Why not?' What a wonderful idea that life on earth should be a preparation for an eternal spiritual life with other spiritual beings whose essential nature is goodness and love. Viktor Frankl was a Jewish doctor who survived three years in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Through that experience of hate and suffering he learned that if a person had a reason to go on living they could put up with almost any suffering. He discovered the truth of Nietzsche's statement, 'He who has a "why" to live can bear with almost any "how"'. He developed a new line of psychology that he called logotherapy (healing through meaning). It is based on the truth that human beings must have a meaning to live to remain mentally healthy. His book, Man's Search for Meaning, sold over two million copies. Without the spiritual dimension that the concept of God gives to life there is no meaning beyond pleasure and survival and the need to produce another generation to maintain our species. But if every experience, even the bad things, contributes to our spiritual growth and enrichment, it gives meaning to them and transforms them into pain with a purpose, provided we always remember that God does not send them; they are simply the inevitable product of our mortality and human freedom.

In considering this subject, it is important to remind ourselves that for most of the time good times far exceed bad times. The good life is normal and the tragedies of life are abnormal; this makes them news and gives them a disproportionate value in our eyes. When Harold Kushner's son, Aaron, was born it soon became apparent that something was wrong. The doctors diagnosed the trouble as progeria (rapid ageing) and said that he would not

- 132 -

grow over three feet tall, he would look like a little old man while he was still a child and he would die in his early teens. He developed as predicted and died at the age of fourteen. His father was a Jewish Rabbi and after Aaron's death he wrote a very helpful book which he titled When Bad Things Happen To Good People. Anyone who has suffered some abnormal experience would find his reflections helpful.

When such a tragedy happens we tend to forget that millions of babies are born healthy; we see only our own imperfect child and ask the question, 'God, why me?' But the real wonder, considering the complexity of reproduction, is that the great majority of babies are born healthy. While this makes the situation all the more poignant for the family concerned, we should remember that it was due to an error that occurred in the process of reproduction. God was in no way to blame. Doctors have identified over 4,000 diseases that are the result of errors in gene reproduction. But it is also true that such errors are estimated to occur only once in a billion reproductions. Unfortunately, they can be transmitted to their descendants and so are multiplied. We must ask 'why' in order to prevent them recurring but we should never ask, 'Why God?'

One of the most helpful little books for anyone who is grieving is called simply Good Grief. The author, Grainger Westburg, lists a series of typical stages that those who are grieving often experience. First there is shock at the terrible sense of loss experienced. This is often followed by anger that their good life has been disturbed in this way. This is frequently followed by feelings of guilt. People tend to blame themselves using the 'if only' syndrome. They feel that it could have been prevented if they had acted other than they did. They may also blame other people; perhaps the doctor or hospital, or a relative, and God doesn't escape either. In their anguish they may ask why God allowed it to happen. After a time, most people face reality and reach varying degrees of acceptance. With acceptance comes inner peace. It is helpful to know that this is the common experience of many because it makes our reaction normal and helps us understand our feelings.

It is important to grieve. If we deny our feelings at such times it will have a deleterious effect on us. God gave us tears to use in times of grief. Express anger if you feel it, blame God if you want to, he understands. But be gentle with others, they may not be to blame any more than you are. Our anger should be directed at the circumstance that is causing our grief, not at other

- 133 -

people who are probably just as distraught as we are, especially if they contributed to the event. Some people turn their anger into a positive force, such as those who work or give to find the answer to cancer or some other disease.

When the event has happened to a friend or relative it is important to respond with caring and compassion which is essential for a healing process to take place. Their 'Why God?, Why me?', is not really a request for answers, it is a cry for help and an appeal to others to share their grief. As the familiar saying goes, 'They need a shoulder to cry on'. We need to be there for them while they slowly work their way through shock, anger, guilt, and loss to the peace that acceptance brings.

 

- 134 -

14. Do people really matter today?

This is a series of six Bible studies that show the importance Jesus gave to individual people and their needs. This feature of his life and teaching has become especially relevant in this increasingly depersonalised age when individual people and their needs are often secondary to national or economic interests.

THE BIBLE MAKES it abundantly clear that God's intention for the human race was that we should cooperate with each other to provide a mutually supportive society in which every individual could enjoy total security. We were commanded to love and care for each other with the same concern we gave to our own welfare.

God recognised that some would have more ability than others and those with more possessions were commanded to be generous and provide for the needs of those who were less fortunate; the poor, widows, and orphans being specifically mentioned as being everybody's responsibility. They were not to be indifferent to other's needs; nobody was to be neglected.

If God's instructions had been followed, human society would have become one big caring human family bound together by a loving concern for each other. To reinforce this ideal, God laid down certain restrictions to make this possible. No one was to harm or kill another, they were not to steal each

- 135 -

other's possessions, there were rules about correct sexual relationships, they were not to enslave anyone, and they were not to hate or exploit their fellows.

But there was one vulnerable spot in the human character. What God had intended as our greatest strength became our greatest weakness. God endowed us with freedom. We were not programmed by instinct as the animals were, we had total freedom of choice and every selfish choice we made contributed to the breakdown of God's intention for society. People today have become greedy, keeping their possessions for their own use, not caring that millions lack the barest necessities of life.

In our highly competitive business world, many firms exploit others for their own advantage, not caring what happens to those who do not survive. There is much violence in the community, people are bashed, robbed and killed, women, whose person should be inviolate at all times, are raped or used as prostitutes without a care for their feelings or future. Race hatred is a feature of our modern life, blacks, indigenous people, Jews, Gypsies, and people of a different race or religion are treated as though they had no feelings or rights. Human society has become a dangerous and frightening place to live.

Christians must speak into this social jungle that selfishness has created, and loudly and persistently affirm that people matter. This is the most important single message the church must proclaim. It is the unique contribution of Judaism and Christianity to the world. It is the central message of the gospel. In these six Bible studies from the gospels, we bring the example and teaching of Jesus to bear on this theme. These are very important Bible studies.


PEOPLE MATTER Study No. 1

People matter even when they are poor and powerless

1. Jesus' humble origin. (Luke 1:51-53)

It was God's choice that his Son should be born of a peasant woman in the poorest and lowliest of circumstances. This deliberate decision by God the Father showed that, in his eyes, money, power, and position had nothing to do with greatness. In her song, Mary rejoiced that God had scattered the proud, ignored the rich, and humbled the mighty; he had also raised the

- 136 -

lowly and fed the hungry. In the circumstances of Jesus' birth, God was saying loud and clear that people matter, whoever they are.

2. Jesus' first sermon (Luke 4:14-30)

Jesus' choice of Bible reading and subject when he preached his first sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth showed clearly that the more needy and oppressed people were, the more they mattered to him. He selected a prophecy from Isaiah 61:1-2 which foretold that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon God's servant, giving him a concern for the poor, the captives, the oppressed and the blind (probably the spiritually blind). He greatly antagonised his hearers by citing two instances of how God had blessed needy Gentiles, suggesting that God was as interested in non-Jews as in his 'chosen people'. They tried to kill him for such heresy.

3. Jesus' Policy Speech--The Sermon on the Mount. (Luke 6:20-26; Matt. 5:1-9)

Here again we find the same sentiments. Jesus calls the poor, the hungry, the sorrowing, the hated, the rejected, and the insulted, blessed. He pronounces curses on the rich, the satiated, and the self-satisfied who care nothing for those less privileged. He overturns the accepted values of success and greatness. He is a passionate social reformer. He declares himself to be the champion of the underprivileged. His program is about social justice and human rights. He challenges the existing norms. He says that everybody matters to God and he calls on his hearers to change their attitude. It is no wonder the common people heard him gladly and those in positions of power and authority saw him as a threat.

Discussion question:

How far does discipleship to Jesus oblige us to be involved in human rights issues in today's society?


PEOPLE MATTER Study No. 2

People matter more than ritual and tradition

1. People's needs take precedence over ritual practices. (Luke 6:1-11)

- 137 -

Here Jesus was not desecrating the Sabbath but challenging the minute definitions of 'working' on the Sabbath which the lawyers had added. We must beware that our added human rules and customs do not get elevated to the level of sacred law.

2. Separating the trivial from the important. (Luke 11:37-46)

Ritual washing of hands and tithing of herbs. What do you think Jesus meant by verse 41? What were the two things that they neglected? Are Christians neglecting these today?

3. Insincere religious profession denounced. (Matt. 23:13-28)

Jesus passionately denounced religious people who played great emphasis on right doctrine and correct ritual but neglected justice, mercy, faith and honesty. Note the graphic hyperbole of verse 24 Compare this denunciation with verse 37, which shows that Jesus cared about them even though he denounced them.

Discussion question:

Does the typical church program place too much emphasis on denominational doctrine and ritual, individual salvation, and personal holiness, and too little on issues of justice in the wider community?


PEOPLE MATTER Study No. 3

People of other nations and religions matter

1. Jesus associated with heretics. (1 Kings 12:26-33; John 4:1-42)

When Jeroboam and the ten tribes separated from Judah and Benjamin they established their own temple and priesthood at Samaria, contrary to the law of Moses. John recorded the prevailing Jewish attitude when he wrote; 'The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans' (John 4:9) Yet Jesus deliberately mixed socially with these people.

2. Jesus associated with foreigners and people of mixed races and pagan religions. (2 Kings 17:22-34)

In spite of their origin Jesus did not despise the Samaritans. He defied public opinion and spent two days in the Samaritan village of Sychar, socializing

- 138 -

and teaching the people. John 4:39-40. When he told the story we call 'The Good Samaritan' (Luke 10:30-37) he showed that behaviour was more important to God than heresy, paganism, or racial identity.

3. God showed Simon Peter that the cruel and despised Romans who ruled Israel mattered to him. (Acts 10) The vision to Simon Peter was directed against racial and religious prejudice. Note vv. 15 & 45.

4. Jesus showed Paul that all Gentile (non-Jewish) nations mattered to him. (Acts 26:15-18) He personally appeared to him and commissioned him to share in the Kingdom of God on equal terms with Jews.

Discussion question:

Has our zeal for truth and righteousness caused us to become separated from, and prejudiced against, classes of people we might regard as inferior?


PEOPLE MATTER Study No. 4

Lawbreakers and social outcasts mattered to Jesus

1. He was friendly to tax collectors.

He chose Matthew (Levi) as a disciple. (Luke 5:27-32) He defied popular opinion by befriending Zacchaeus. (Luke 19:1-10) Tax collectors were regarded as traitors and cheats.

2. Jesus restored dignity to despised women.

He showed a prostitute that she mattered. (Luke 7:36-50)

He cared about the reformation of an adulteress. (John 8:1-11)

He showed respect to a woman in a de facto relationship and discussed spiritual matters with her without judging her. (John 4)

3. The thief on the cross mattered.

He showed him that despite his crime he mattered to God and would share in Jesus' kingdom. (Luke 23:39-43)

- 139 -

Discussion question:

It has been said that the churches have become too much like spiritual clubs that exist primarily for their members, and that Christians have little contact with the general population? In the above instances, Jesus generally took the initiative. How could Christians take more initiative when people break the conventions of society?


PEOPLE MATTER Study No. 5

People's material circumstances matter greatly to God

1. Jesus condemned those who neglected to help the sick and the poor. (Luke 16:19-31)

Under the Mosaic law, Jews were obliged to provide for widows and orphans and farmers were to leave some of their harvest for the poor. In this story, Jesus shows that we are responsible for the alleviation of poverty. Doing nothing in the presence of obvious human need is sinful because it is a violation of the law of love. The beggar was of no value in the eyes of the rich man, but in God's estimation he was equal in value to any other.

2. Jesus says we can only minister to God by ministering to people. (Matt. 25:31-46)

Here Jesus identifies totally with the needy, the powerless, and the despised of the world. Our treatment of the despised minority is the basis on which we will be judged. The sin here, as in the above parable, is the sin of omission. Failure to minister to others in their need shows lack of love. Jesus said that loving God and loving others were the two greatest commandments, so neglecting to love God and others must be the greatest sins we can commit.

3. The Holy Spirit demonstrated that people's needs are God's first priority. (Acts 2:44-47)

After the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he filled the hearts of the disciples with such love that they felt it intolerable that any should have unfulfilled needs. They spontaneously took the initiative and shared their goods. The love that came from God through the Holy Spirit provided the motivation that instantly broke through entrenched attitudes of selfishness. Love

- 140 -

for others in their need comes from loving God first. Until we are motivated by God's Spirit we will not be capable of fulfilling the ideal Jesus sets before us.

Discussion question:

The welfare state ensures that no one in Australia is totally penniless but there are still many people who need supplementary assistance. Should Christians leave this to individual initiative or should there be some organization within our churches through which this need could be met?


PEOPLE MATTER Study No. 6

People matter because god loves all mankind.

1. Love is the fulfilment of the law. (Matt 22:34-40)

(See also Leviticus 19:9-18 and Matthew 7:12)

Laws are to regulate society and to protect people's rights.

The Bible never speaks about our rights, only about our responsibilities. If we love people we do not need laws because we have other's welfare at heart. When we treat them as we wish to be treated ourselves we have superseded law.

2. Jesus taught us to love even our enemies. (Matt. 5:38-48)

Verse 45 is the significant one here. God maintains an attitude of positive goodness towards everybody, irrespective of their attitude to him. In commanding us to love people who are not deserving of love, he redefines the word 'love' for us. God is not asking us to feel affection for difficult, irritating, hostile and dangerous people, but he is asking us to maintain an attitude of positive goodwill to them, irrespective of their attitude to us. The Hebrew word hesed (translated mercy or loving kindness) and the Greek word agape (translated love) are words that describe an attitude, but not necessarily feelings.

3. Love is the distinguishing mark of a Christian. (John 13:33-35)

This should be especially so between Jesus' followers. Jesus exalted love over

- 141 -

doctrine. It is the one distinguishing mark of a Christian. If we fail to love, we cease to be true disciples of Jesus.

4. The apostle John declares that love is the key to humanity's problems. (1 John 4:7-16, 19-21)

John says that this kind of love comes from God. God is love. When we love, God lives in us. If we say that we love God and hate our brother (sister) we are liars. God is the secret of loving. We love because he first loved us. Because God has shown his love to us through Christ Jesus, even though we are sinners, we are under obligation to show love to others. 'This commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.'

Conclusion

This number one problem of our human society can never be solved by a change of political leadership, by new laws about human rights or by education. It can only be solved by a change of our human natures. We are all selfish by nature to some degree and we need the implantation of God's loving Spirit so that we are spiritually born again with new loving, caring, sharing, forgiving, personalities.

From past experience, we know that only a minority of people have learned that this is the essential nature of Christianity and only a small proportion of the world's population will ever ask Jesus Christ to come into their lives with his life-changing Spirit. It follows, therefore, that Christianity can never become an acceptable political program to transform society. Jesus said that it will work like leaven (yeast) which works from within with changed particles changing others next to them.

Society will not be changed by humanly devised programs imposed from the top, but only by individuals who have learned to love others because they first learned to love God. Jesus said that such people are the light of the world and the salt of the earth.

Such people will never be understood by the general community, just as Jesus was not understood, and rejected. They will find that vested interests will oppose the reforms they seek to initiate. The more a person implements the ideals of Jesus the more they will experience opposition and rejection by people motivated only by self-interest. But this did not stop Jesus and it should not stop those in whose hearts his Spirit now lives. People, all people, mattered

- 142 -

to Jesus, and they must matter equally to his disciples.

Discussion Question:

Should this re-study of the example and teaching of Jesus lead to any change in our personal attitude or our church program? Share your feelings with the group and decide if any group action is desirable.

 

- 143 -

15. How do you prepare a talk?

Christian preaching was never meant to be the sole prerogative of professional ministers. These notes were prepared for a layperson's seminar conducted at Numurkah. Preparing and delivering addresses is very much an individual matter, dictated by the person's personality, but these general guidelines might be helpful to those who are just venturing into public speaking.

1. Begin early

GOOD SERMONS ARE NOT MADE--they grow. They begin with the birth of an idea that is then developed as it grows in the mind. This takes time. The subconscious will work on the subject presented to it and the imagination will amplify the original concept, bringing forward all kinds of related ideas. You will consciously select from these thoughts the ones that support your purpose until you have a message built around a single aim. A sermon can be prepared at one sitting but when you begin days before, or even a week or two, the result will generally be better. You will make many changes and may even change the aim as your preparation proceeds.

2. Selecting your subject

This can be the most difficult part. Once a subject is chosen most of us can say something on it. Therefore, we should avoid having to start from scratch.

- 144 -

Get a manila folder and label it 'SERMON IDEAS'. Write down ideas that come to you; jot down scripture passages and note what appealed to you in them; cut out articles and illustrations; write out rough outlines for a message. Ideas in the mind tend to dissipate into forgetfulness. Ideas on paper grow. You will tend to add to these from time to time and in this way messages can develop without much effort. It pays to have something 'in the pantry' when you are called on to feed the congregation. The set scripture passages for each Sunday are widely used by ministers. They are chosen for their content so there is usually a sermon or two hidden in them. You will find that any general reading you do will also provide material that you will draw on. The best sermons come out of a well-stocked mind.

3. Two essential elements

Whatever type of sermon is used it should contain two distinct elements which must be blended together.

The first is the biblical element. There is a divine content, a 'given' word from the Lord, a gospel to be proclaimed and a body of biblical teaching to be expounded.

Second, there is the living situation, the circumstances of daily life with all the physical and emotional needs we all experience. Everybody has personal needs and problems of some sort and they look to the church and the preacher for help in their daily, and sometimes desperate, circumstances.

Above all, people need answers to the ultimate questions of life which neither a university education nor the scientists or philosophers can give. They need to be assured that there is a personal Creator who is a loving and merciful Father. They need to know that because Jesus suffered and died there is forgiveness for all their sins. Their guilt can be expunged. They need to be assured of the hope of eternal life and a place in the kingdom of God. They need to know that the Lord is always present with them in the person of the Holy Spirit. They also need to be taught the implications of love and the responsibility towards their fellows that love brings. It is the preacher's task to expound these and other great biblical truths and apply them to the living situation of his/her listeners.

4. Different types of sermons

(1) The textual sermon: often called exposition. It takes a passage of scripture

- 145 -

and seeks to bring out its meaning, relating it to everyday life. This is probably the most frequently used sermon type in Churches of Christ.

(2) The topical sermon: This begins with a topic or a life situation and then goes back to various passages of scripture, or even just general biblical principles, to support the presentation. (For example, A Christian's social responsibility, The grace of God, Marriage, and so on).

(3) A biblical biography: The lives of biblical characters are a good source of example and inspiration and offer an interesting variation. Try Abraham, Daniel, or Mary.

(4) The doctrinal sermon: This may be on some of the great doctrines of the Bible such as The Incarnation, Resurrection, Second Coming, Holy Spirit, Baptism and so on. These require careful and thorough preparation based on commentaries and a good knowledge of scripture so perhaps these could be left to the trained ministers.

(5) Parables and incidents: These are real life situations that offer good resource material for someone not too experienced. For example, the story of Cornelius, the parables of Matthew 13 or 25.

Choose significant topics or passages that offer plenty of material to work on. Don't waste your time on trifling subjects or passages without much content. The great human issues and biblical themes are always relevant and helpful.

5. Preparing your material We can read the Bible in two quite distinct ways. First, we read it for personal instruction and encouragement. Second, we study it with a view to preparing a talk for the instruction and inspiration of others. We could liken our personal reading to a hiker walking through the country, learning something about it, but mainly being refreshed in spirit by what he/she sees. We could liken the one who reads with a view to preparing a talk to a prospector who carefully examines the terrain in detail, discovering what it contains of value whether of timber, soil, or mineral deposits. He collects samples of plants, soil and rocks for later analysis. He acquires a thorough knowledge of the

- 146 -

country he explores. Hikers bring back slides for enjoyment, prospectors brink back valuable information.

To prepare a sermon one must become a prospector. We will use this analogy and make it the basis of our method of sermon preparation. In constructing this analogy we have followed an important principle for speakers. Always try to use picture language rather than abstract statements. We could have said that to prepare a sermon you must read the passage, analyse it and organize your material around a theme. But the mental image of a hiker, pack on back, and walking stick in hand, surveying the landscape; contrasted with the image of a prospector with his geologist's hammer and bag of samples, bending over exploring the rockface is much more likely to be remembered.

Six stages of sermon preparation using the above analogy

1. The prospector finds: The prospector's first step is to receive instructions from his boss. Never begin sermon preparation without first committing it to the Lord in prayer and asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance. Then search for a passage of scripture that you feel has sufficient content and value to be worth talking about and which is relevant to the lives of your listeners. You may have to search out and reject several possibilities before you feel you have found a passage rich enough in thought for developing into a sermon.

2. The analyst identifies: The prospector takes his bag of soil and rock samples back to the laboratory for analysis. You now become the analyst and search the material to identify the various ideas it contains, writing these down randomly as you find them. You are analysing and identifying all the ideas and teaching in the passage. You are taking it to pieces and separating its various elements. You will discover things you never saw in the passage before. It will soon be apparent that some thoughts are more important than others. Select out the leading ideas; these will be the divisions of your sermon. You only need three or four if possible. A theme will probably run through the passage and you will see how all the different statements are related to this theme.

3. The executive decides: You must now evaluate the ideas you have isolated and decide which material you are going to use. You must have a purpose, an aim, an objective, and you should write it down. Writing your aim is important

- 147 -

because it makes you think very specifically and selectively. It will enable you to transform the jumble of ideas you have jotted down into an orderly, logical and helpful message.

4. The manager organizes: You now take on the role of a production manager who takes the raw material and organizes it to achieve the chosen objective. Take a fresh sheet of paper and working from the notes you jotted down during your analysis you choose and write out the leading ideas. Try to word these headings in a uniform way. For example, the main headings for Psalm 37 could be: (1) The danger of envy. (2) The folly of the wicked (3) The wisdom of the righteous. (4) The help of the Lord.

These are the main points of your message. They are mainly for your benefit so that you can organize your material in a logical, more easily remembered form, but your audience will also appreciate an orderly presentation of a subject. Try to pick out a keyword in each heading. Remember that you not only have to prepare the material, you have to preach it and you need all the memory aids you can get. You then use other material from the passage itself, or from other sources, to support these main propositions.

5. The salesman promotes: You have to make people feel that what you are saying is valuable and useful in their daily lives. So you must be sure that it is linked to real down-to-earth everyday needs.

Dr Schuller tells a story about a firm that manufactured dog food. They wanted to introduce a new line so they employed a nutritionist to prepare a recipe for the most nutritious dog food on the market. They had a great sales campaign to introduce it and early sales were good but soon fell right away. They checked their recipe again and found it excellent but despite its nutritional value it failed in one important aspect; the dogs wouldn't eat it. We might prepare what we think is a great sermon but unless it appeals to the people's palate it will be a failure. They will soon stop listening unless they feel that what you are saying is relevant to themselves. This application to life must run through the whole of the message. Stories and illustrations from life can be added to the biblical material to make it relevant.

6. Packaging: The product may be excellent and meet a real need but it must be attractively presented. There are three more things your sermon needs to finish it properly.

- 148 -

Professor Richard Feynman said (paraphrased): 'You don't really know a subject until you can teach it.' The person who gets the most out of a sermon is the one who prepares it. This may seem to be a rather mechanical way to prepare a spiritual message but we must not overlook the fact that we are seeking to communicate the thoughts that are in our mind to another person's mind. Both minds are equipped with the same logical apparatus, the human brain, so we must use the principles by which the brain operates.

A person is more than a mind. There are three attributes of personality: the mind with which we think, the emotions with which we feel, and the will with which we decide. The most effective sermon will appeal to all three. A sermon that merely imparts information may be interesting but it will not achieve much. A sermon that has little content but appeals to the feelings may get results but it may not have a lasting effect. Every sermon should aim to bring about change in the listeners; to influence their will and cause them to make a decision; either to commit their lives to Christ, or to take some action that will help them conform more fully to the teachings of Jesus.

Preaching your sermon

To keep to our principle of using picture language rather than abstract statements we will introduce another analogy, namely, the different roles of a solicitor and a barrister.

A solicitor does all the work of preparing the brief for a case and the barrister stands before the judge and jury and pleads the case for the accused. In preparing the sermon you filled the solicitor's role, in preaching to the congregation you fill the barrister's role. You must now put on your barrister's 'hat' and set out to convince the 'jury. There are three methods you may use in presenting your material.

1. You may speak without notes. This will require a good memory and a thorough grasp of your subject. You will need to memorise the main points you wish to make and how you intend to conclude your message-some even try to memorise the whole wording. This latter is not recommended. It

- 149 -

is both too difficult and too risky. If you forget any part you will lose your cue and flounder. Besides, your presentation will be too stilted. But it is quite possible to remember your theme and the main points you wish to make. This makes for very effective preaching and some make this their regular practice.

2. You may read your material. This will give you excellent content and wording but it will be difficult to hold the interest of your audience. If you read it you must read it in a different way to normal reading. I believe Winston Churchill read his most important speeches but he read them in such a way that they conveyed his feelings. They had pauses, emphasis and varied voice inflection. Unless you are competent at reading in this way, read material soon becomes boring. We do not recommend reading your material.

3. You may speak from notes. This can be done in two ways. Some use very brief notes, perhaps just for the opening, the main points, and perhaps a key phrase or illustration. This usually takes some experience or a particular kind of person to do it well. It is similar to the first method and is quite effective.

Others speak from rather full notes and this is the method that is probably mostly used and, with practice, it can be as effective as the first method. You do not write out the material in an essay form but set it out with Introduction, Main Points, and the detail you want to present under these headings, and Conclusion. This method takes away the fear of not knowing what to say next. You will find that you will be able to recall most of what you want to say because you wrote it out.

The action of writing it out fairly fully adds what is called 'motor' memory to mental and visual memory and assists with recall. By writing out your thoughts in detail under the main headings you clarify your thinking and imprint it on your mind. It enables you to compose your actual statements as you speak, it allows you to look at your audience most of the time and maintain eye contact but, when you need to refresh your memory, you just have to look at your notes to keep your line of thought. You may even read your main points or other significant phrases. You alternate between looking at your audience and your notes. This may take a little practice at first but as confidence grows, you will find it comes naturally.

4. Make sure you are heard. Some people have a good carrying voice but

- 150 -

others do not. There is nothing worse than having to strain to hear what is being said. Many churches have amplification but it must be used correctly. The personal microphone on the body is probably best but if this is not available keep fairly close to the microphone. You should be within 30 cm (1 foot) of the microphone and if you do not have a good carrying voice, half that distance. Even then, speak louder than in normal conversation. Get someone to test out your speaking level in the building. Be sure to be heard.

5. Be aware of time. Plan for 15 to 20 minutes. Have you ever heard people complain because the sermon was too short? Yet they frequently complain that the preacher was too long. Today, people are not used to listening for long periods and the preacher has to be outstanding if he preaches over 30 minutes. The human mind can only absorb a certain amount at one sitting. Little children can only concentrate for about one minute, school children need frequent changes, and adults will not bother to listen unless they are interested. They will sit quietly in church, apparently listening to the preacher, but unless he is saying something interesting their mind will wander.

Sometimes the physical body is lulled into a short nap; sleeping during sermons is not a joke, it is a fact that most preachers have witnessed with their own eyes. The human mind is never idle and a model of efficiency. If what it is listening to is of no interest to it, it will simply switch to something else on its agenda without your conscious consent. The body is still in church but the mind is probably buying a dress, planning dinner, down at the beach, or on the golf course. So err on the side of brevity and learn when to stop.

Tools to assist in preparation

1. A Reference Bible

This is a Bible that has references on each page, in addition to the text. These references are to passages that are in some way related to that verse. The King James Version and the Revised Standard Version have good references. These are always worth looking up and often provide useful related material.

2. A Concordance This is your most useful tool. It will help you find any word or passage you recall but cannot locate, and enable you to get the exact wording. Quotations must use the exact wording so don't quote from memory unless you are sure.

- 151 -

3. A Bible Dictionary

This is not essential but will provide helpful background information and frequent use of it will provide you with a valuable source of knowledge.

4. Commentaries

These will help to explain difficult passages. There are one-volume commentaries that cover the whole Bible and there are single book commentaries. They can be expensive. They are available second-hand from some religious bookshops or an advertisement in the Australian Christian might produce some. Retired preachers may be glad to help an aspiring beginner in this way. William Barclay's commentaries are particularly helpful in sermon preparation. If you use an outline from someone else you should acknowledge your source.

Sample notes for a textual sermon

The readings set for one Sunday were Luke 1:5-10 & Ps. 37:27-33. We looked at the Luke reading and found it, on its own, inadequate for a sermon. The reading from Psalm 37 was also insufficient but there was enough material in the whole Psalm so this was selected as the resource material for the sermon. After going through the steps outlined above we prepared the following notes from which to preach. We have chosen Psalm 37 as the basis of a textual sermon.

Should Christians be ambitious?

Aim: To show that we should seek the Lord, not riches, for he gives us lasting prosperity.

Intro: Allan Bond, Australia's most ambitious man and greatest success story in recent years. He won America's Cup, established Australia's first private University, controlled billions of dollars, became the envy of many, was found guilty of unlawful practices, became a bankrupt and ended up in prison.

I. The danger of envy

- 152 -

What does it mean to fret? The Oxford Dictionary defines fret as 'to chafe, wear away, to distress oneself with discontent or regret'. When we envy the rich and prosperous it causes us to fret and it wears away at our peace of mind, we become discontented and we are tempted to become prosperous like the wicked, even if we have to lower our standards to achieve our aim. Ambition is not wrong in itself but it is wrong if it leads to fretting about our poor circumstances and leads us to envy with its obvious temptations.

Envy has two relatives, covetousness and greed. God has warned us about the danger of covetousness.

Jesus regarded covetousness and greed as serious sins. He said, 'Beware of covetousness for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions'.

Paul said that, 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. So in this Psalm we are dealing with one of the major problems of society and one of the greatest temptations of the Christian.

II. The folly of the wicked

The theme of this Psalm is the contrast between the wicked and the righteous. Let us see what is said about them.

The wicked are equated with the prosperous. Often people's wealth is acquired by shady methods and by a disregard for others. Some people get rich by making others poor. David, who wrote this psalm, is not condemning prosperity in itself, nor does the Bible anywhere do this, for many become prosperous by hard work and the careful management of their resources. He condemns the wicked, not the rich. Let us see what he says:

- 153 -

The common theme of these statements is that the prosperity of the wicked is temporary. It is based on cheating, robbery and violence and they and their children are doomed to failure. Summed up in verse 13, 'the Lord laughs at the wicked for he sees that his day is coming'.

Examples from life

It is not difficult to find living illustrations of the truth of the Psalmist's words. Politically, we think of Mussolini, The Nazis, Stalin who were hated by their people and have vanished like smoke. Economically, we think of Bond, Skase and many others whose prosperity was short-lived. Over-ambitious people who are driven by a love of money or the love of power are like the annuals in our gardens, they flower brilliantly for a short season but they soon wither and die and they are gone for ever. Now let us see what is said about the righteous.

II. The wisdom of the righteous

- 154 -

IV. The help of the Lord

(1) The Lord is the strength of the righteous.

In the age-old struggle between good and evil in the world we sometimes forget that there is a third player--the LORD. We have seen how every time the righteous are mentioned the name of the Lord is associated with them. The poor and oppressed may appear to be alone and weak but the Lord is always with them, encouraging them and assuring them of his support.

(2) The righteous trust in the Lord and keep his law.

Note the progressive steps of verses 3-7: Trust, Delight, Commit, Wait.

The wicked have God for their judge and they are condemned. The righteous have the Lord for their strength and their true prosperity is assured. Their wealth is not measured in riches but in righteousness.

Conclusion

At the beginning we asked the question 'Should Christians be ambitious?' We can say 'Yes', but ambitious for the right things. Not ambitious for the riches of the wicked but ambitious for righteousness because prosperity with the Lord's blessing is prosperity indeed. Our ambition should be to love the Lord and walk in his ways; to trust him, delight in him and commit our way to him. Jesus said 'Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be added to you.'

 

- 155 -

16. What is 'New Age' thought?

This article was prepared for a person who was enquiring about 'New Age' thinking and is reproduced here as an introduction to the concepts that are loosely classified as New Age thought.

THE 'NEW AGE' referred to is the age of Aquarius. Marilyn Ferguson's book, The Aquarian Conspiracy, published in 1980, brought together a number of independent streams of thought that had common elements and focused them into an optimistic vision of a new age toward which human society is said to be moving. This gave these disparate movements a name and a common identity and the concept of the 'New Age' movement was born.

It is a recent movement. It was not until 1987 that the media caught up with what was happening and began to give it publicity. This was partly due to the actress, Shirley MacLaine, popularising it by sharing her personal experiences on television and in her books; but also through the publicity that attended the gathering of some twenty thousand 'New Agers' at 'sacred sites' around the world on August 16, 1987, for what they called the Harmonic Convergence event. These sites are said to be where invisible lines of force, called Ley lines, converge at certain times with a resultant effect on human affairs.

The New Age ideology is not a sect or religion with a clearly defined belief system and organization. It places more emphasis on experience than

- 156 -

on belief. It could be called a movement, or a new ideology or philosophy. It has also been described as a network, similar to the business networks that have arisen in the marketing world. It is composed of different independent individuals or organizations, each having their own particular emphasis, but cooperating because they share some common values and a common vision.

No one speaks in an authoritative way for the movement. We cannot take a statement by an individual or an organization as representative of all New Ager's views. Nevertheless, there are some beliefs and practices that are in the mainstream of New Age thought. Most bookshops now have a New Age section. This shows that there is a broad school of current thought that can be classified as New Age.

In order to understand any new ideology we need to look for the roots from which it grew. Ideologies arise either from the human search for meaning or from an attempt to improve the lot of society. Both these elements are present in New Age thinking. The impact of science on traditional beliefs has brought about major changes in the thought patterns of society during this present century. The concept of Darwinian evolution removed the need for a creator by presenting mutation and natural selection as an adequate naturalistic explanation for the existence of life.

Although Darwin's theory has never been empirically proved it has become a powerful belief system that is strongly entrenched in modern culture. As a result there are more agnostics in western society today than believers in the traditional God of creation. This is especially so among the intelligentsia.

This replacement of belief in a supernatural creator by the naturalistic theory of Darwinism meant that humankind were totally alone in the vastness of the universe. There was no heavenly Father guiding history towards an ultimate harmonious and blissful Kingdom of God; there was no purpose in creation, human life was devoid of ultimate meaning. Human beings were devastatingly alone, the only conscious creatures in the emptiness of space.

But human beings have a spiritual consciousness as well as a physical body, and this loss of meaning and purpose left a spiritual void that led to a search for spiritual fulfilment outside traditional Christianity. Some turned to science others to the ancient religions; some sought the answer within their own consciousness, and yet others turned to the supernatural realm of the occult. We will look at the various lines of thought that have been followed in the attempt to fill this spiritual vacuum.

- 157 -

The concept of God has been changed. Instead of the traditional view of God as a transcendent being with his own identity, separate from man; and also immanent, that is, eternally active in the universe and human affairs; New Age thought has adopted the Hindu concept of a pantheistic deity. In pantheistic thought there is an impersonal force that pervades everything that exists, so everything is God, and because human beings are part of the universe, they are part of God, having divine attributes. Unity with God is achieved through self-realization. When New Agers use the term 'God' it should be understood in pantheistic terms.

We communicate with this God force by looking within ourselves, so there is a strong emphasis on consciousness, meditation and self-awareness. Louise Hay, a leader in the New Age movement, says that the key to all our problems is to love ourselves. She says that there is no right or wrong, good or bad, but only the experience of the moment. We are told to release ourselves from the past by forgiving ourselves, taking charge of our life and becoming free.

Consciousness is the bridge by which we link ourselves with the divine force. Through our own consciousness we are said to be able to get in touch with the universal consciousness or Ultimate Reality. New Alters speak of higher levels of consciousness or expanded consciousness. New Age thought represents a revolt against the traditional materialistic view of the world which science presented. By making consciousness the essence of reality, instead of matter, it has returned to the biblical view that spirit is the ultimate reality, but mere spiritism is very different from the Christian belief in the eternal creative spirit of a personal God.

Particular techniques have been developed to achieve this expanded consciousness; such as chanting a mantra (the name of a Hindu deity), yoga exercises, ecstatic dancing, transcendental meditation, creative visualization, etc. The worship of a heavenly creator has been replaced by the quest for personal transformation. It is believed that if enough people become involved in their own personal transformation, a level of change called a critical mass, can be reached, that will produce a transformation in the whole of society, ultimately replacing both secular humanism and traditional religion. This will usher in the Aquarian Age. This provides a missionary element to the movement similar to the strong motivation which communism generated by its belief that it was an ideology whose time had come.

- 158 -

New Agers refer to Jesus Christ and show respect for his life and teachings, but the term 'Christ' does not mean the same as it does for Christians. Jesus is considered to be just a man. He is seen as entirely human. The Christian belief in his uniqueness is incompatible with belief in pantheism. The term 'Christ' means no more than achieving a level of consciousness with the divine principle which is in all people. It is said that we can also attain 'Christ-consciousness' because everybody can become one with God. This view of Jesus Christ destroys the central biblical teaching of the incarnation and the atoning death of Jesus. It cuts to the heart of the Christian faith.

Another mainstream New Age belief is reincarnation. This belief has been adopted from Hinduism. It is the view that the soul, being part of the divine, is immortal. Death is the separation of the soul from the body; the soul lives on and returns to earth again in another body. After a period in an 'astral' state the soul chooses its parents for another earthly life. This is necessary because of the law of karma.

The law of karma is the impersonal and inexorable principle that whatever we do must be experienced in the exact opposite proportion before we can attain salvation and release from this earthly cycle. Salvation is attained when one's bad karma (bad deeds) is balanced by good karma (good deeds). When we have an excess of bad deeds we have to return in another life to try to gain enough excess good deeds to balance them. This means that 'salvation' has to earned and depends on merit alone. It is in striking contrast to the personal God of the Bible who delights to show mercy, and through his son, Jesus Christ, offers us a complete pardon and eternal life. This seems to present a problem that does not appear to have been answered. The population of the world is constantly increasing, so many new souls must be found somewhere every day. I have not found any New Age writer dealing with this and telling us how these additional souls are generated. I would personally prefer a brand new untarnished soul to one handicapped by bad Karma from a previous life.

One of the principal aspects of New Age thought and practice is its association with the occult. The word 'occult' means hidden. The spirit world is the unseen world. The Bible teaches the reality of both good and bad spirits and that it is possible for humans to communicate with both but God has explicitly forbidden us to contact the unseen spirit world. Leviticus 19:31 says, 'Do not turn to mediums or seek out spirits for you will be defiled by

- 159 -

them'. Deuteronomy 18:9-14 says 'Let no one be found among you who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or cast spells, or who is a medium or spiritist, or who consults the dead'. Isaiah 8:19 says 'When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people enquire of their God. Why consult the dead on behalf of the living'.

Spiritism is the practice of contacting the spirits of the dead or of nonhuman spirits through a medium. It has always been a feature of pagan religions. Mediums are known by different names such as shaman, witch, oracle, seer or fortune-teller. New Agers have coined a new name for this ancient practice; it is called 'channelling'. The practice had fallen into disfavour in western civilization but was revived in America about the middle of last century with an emphasis on contacting departed loved ones through s‚ances and automatic writing.

A new element was introduced by the medium Madame Blavatsky who claimed to receive messages, not from the dead but from superhuman, living, 'Masters' from northern India. The name Theosophy was coined to describe this new development. The messages received were printed and became virtual 'Bibles' of messages from the spirit world. Alice Bailey wrote twenty- five such books.

The latest development, now called 'channelling', was popularised by Jane Roberts during the 1960s. Through use of a Ouija board she contacted a spirit called Seth. He began to speak directly through her while she was in a trance state. The messages were recorded and published and enjoyed a wide readership. The desire to receive messages from the spirit world has a great fascination for many and soon others claimed to be receiving messages from other spirits; Ramtha and Lazaris are two of the better known 'Masters' but there are many others such as Ambres in Sweden and McPherson in California. Some claim to be able to channel messages from dolphins. The craze has become so popular that there are claimed to be over one thousand channellers in Los Angeles alone.

There appears to be one central theme in the great diversity of spirits contacted. Elliot Miller says it is: 'All is one. You are God. You create your own reality.' It is considered that traditional beliefs hold us back by placing limitations on our experience. These must be discarded because human nature is of the same essence as the impersonal God who is all that exists. Seth

- 160 -

declares 'The self is not limited . . . You make your own reality' Ramtha said: 'You be unequivocally God.' We are exhorted to take complete control of our own lives, to love ourselves, to become totally free and independent, to rise to higher levels of consciousness. Ramtha has said 'Contemplate the love of God; how great this Entity-Self is, that is all encompassing; that will allow you to be and to do anything you wish and hold you judgeless.'

It is obvious that the messages received through these so-called 'Masters' are anti-God and anti-Christ and contradictory to biblical teaching. It has been pointed out that two of the key statements of New Age thought; 'You can be as God' and 'You will not die' were first uttered by Satan to Adam and Eve. If the message is the same it is not unreasonable to suggest that it comes from the same source.

Resource:
A Crash Course on the New Age Movement by Elliot Miller. Baker Book House, Michigan, 1989.

 

- 161 -

17. What is postmodernism?

THE TERM 'POSTMODERN', although used occasionally earlier, only caught the attention of the intellectual world in the 1970s with the publication of Jean-Francois Lyotard's report on the current state of knowledge in developed societies which he titled: 'The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge'.

The development of our understanding of the world does not progress at an even pace, but from time to time, it reaches a critical stage where the accumulation of new knowledge, and the development of thought, makes the current view of the Universe, and our human experience, untenable, and it is replaced with a new understanding of reality. This is referred to as a paradigm shift. The development of postmodern concepts represents a paradigm shift.

The term, Postmodern, has been coined to identify the move away from the basic assumptions of the last few centuries which grew out of the Enlightenment and which scholars designated Modernism. Those assumptions are now being challenged and rejected by the school of thought which is described as Postmodern. Its emphasis is almost entirely negative, its principal theme being the rejection of the assumptions on which modern scientific thought rests. Its positive contribution is that it rejects the scientific view that all knowledge comes through the senses and reason; it affirms that there is a

- 162 -

spiritual aspect to life and that knowledge can also come through the emotions and intuition.

Postmodern thought rejects the scientific claim that knowledge is objectively discerned. It claims that true objectivity is not possible because it is not possible to separate the observer, with his or her cultural background and preconceived notions, from the object, event, or person being observed. This thinking is based on Quantum theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It claims that there is no intrinsic truth 'out there' to be observed but that our view is personally and culturally conditioned. So, true objectivity, which is the aim and central basis of all scientific endeavour, is rejected. It is true that all our observations are influenced by our preconceived ideas, but that does not justify the claim that absolute truth is undiscoverable.

Postmodern thought also rejects the traditional idea that language describes actual reality. It claims that language is only given meaning through the reader's understanding, so any statement or text does not express intrinsic truth, but only the meaning or interpretation the reader gives to it. Any verbal or written statement therefore means different things to different people and each person's opinion is considered as valid as any other. For example, this means that the gospels are not seen as factual historical records, but as interpretations of events by the authors.

There is an element of truth in this, but if we applied this principle totally, it would mean that the evidence of eyewitnesses in our courts would be subjective and valueless and the whole system of justice through the courts would break down. It means that all communication is imperfect, and it is impossible for anyone to claim to tell 'the truth'. On this basis, there is not, and cannot be, any single meaning to reality. Each individual is isolated into their own thought world and there is no commonly accepted, meaningful truth, to provide a unifying force in society.

Postmodern thought has its roots in the writings of Nietzsche who proclaimed his Atheism by declaring 'God is dead', and whose tortured mind could not live with his resultant nihilism, so that he spent much of his life in solitude and was plagued by mental illness for the last eleven years before his untimely death in 1900. One of his disciples, Michel Foucault, who rejected and hated Christianity, is recognised as one of the chief exponents of Postmodernism, which is, not surprisingly, atheistic and nihilistic. (The word, 'nihilism', comes from 'nil', meaning nothing. A nihilist has no beliefs or moral values.)

- 163 -

In Postmodern thought, there is no such thing as absolute truth, so it rejects the authority of God, Jesus Christ and the Bible. One person's belief and behaviour is considered as valid as another's. It therefore endorses pluralism and diversity. It does not see any ultimate meaning or purpose in life; life is only a series of experiences. This acceptance of different standards as equally valid dissolves the difference between right and wrong and results in moral confusion and social fragmentation. Postmodernism fails to provide any unifying principle or ultimate meaning or purpose for life.

Postmodern thinking represents a retrograde step for humanity. Its assumptions are so radical and, in our estimation, so out of step with reality, that it probably represents a temporary phase of atheistic philosophical thought that is enjoying a passing popularity with some intellectuals. It is flourishing because of the spiritual vacuum that has been left by the decline of Christian belief, and the disillusionment with science, that has led the world to the brink of disaster.

The wholly materialistic view of life that science has promoted has left the spiritual side of our natures unsatisfied and many have turned to alternative philosophical concepts, self-styled gurus and the occult. People still have an unsatisfied hunger for a spiritual meaning in life. We can endure considerable hardship if we feel that life still has hope and meaning but when these are taken away people live for the present, grabbing whatever pleasure and satisfaction they can from each day, feeling that the only future they can look forward to is death and extinction.

Surely this philosophy, devoid of meaning, morality and hope, provides a fertile ground in which to sow the Christian message of a creator who is a Father figure, a Saviour who shared our life and suffering, a standard of morality that respects and cares for everybody, and a conviction that death is not the end of existence but an event to be welcomed with joyful anticipation.

Resource:
A Primer on Postmodernism by Stanley J. Grenz published by Eerdmans, Michigan, 1996.

 

- 164 -

18. Is cremation the end?

CREMATION, especially following sudden death, often produces a greater shock than that experienced by burial when the body of the loved one still exists, although covered by the kindly earth. The shock of realizing that the loved one who was with us a few days earlier has been reduced to a few ashes in an urn often has a shattering effect on those who are left behind. Ian Fleming, author of the James Bond stories, expressed this feeling following the cremation of a friend when he said, 'And now, my God, ashes, just ashes.'

The following lines were written for Mrs Rawlings of Bentleigh, a widow who experienced this kind of shock when she received a letter from the crematorium seeking instructions for the disposal of her husband's ashes. Her deep distress inspired her minister to write the following poem for her, to help her understand the sudden and dramatic change that had befallen her husband. It was published in The Australian Christian on 9 May 1981.

His ashes
 
The funeral was over, her friends returned home.
The letter arrived when she was alone;
It gave her a shock, a moment of fear;
It said, What are your wishes? His ashes are here.
You can have them sealed in a casket small
And placed in a niche in a garden wall
With a brass name plate and date;
Or, if your heart does not recoil

- 165 -


With a sense of total loss,
We can sprinkle them on the garden soil
Without a mark or a cross.
The question shattered her memories
As she grasped its full import;
A casket of ashes is all that remains
Of the man I loved, she thought.
He was so strong and vital,
So full of the wonder of living;
He was a person, a man, a human being.
He loved and he cared, he talked and he shared.
His eyes saw the beauty in the flowers he grew;
His ears were attuned to the music he knew;
His hands were skilled for work and for sport;
His voice was vibrant with life and thought.
This was the man that I knew; vital, alive and true.
She struggled in vain to keep back a tear
As she read the sad words, 'His ashes are here.'
I've never thought so deeply before
About the meaning of life.
I've never had to till now, you see,
Because I've been his wife.
But the minister said his life would go on
Beyond the change called death;
It wasn't the end of everything
When he drew his final breath.
Hadn't the Lord when he lived our life
And submitted to death, us to save,
Given new hope to those who mourn
When he came back from the grave?
'I am the resurrection and the life,
He that believeth in me
Though he were dead, yet shall he live',
Were words that helped me believe.
'I am alive for evermore

- 166 -


And have the keys of death and the grave.'
Words like these were my only hope;
They helped to make me brave.
I turned to the Bible to see what it said
And I found a new thought when I opened and read,
'The dust returns to the earth as it was
And the spirit returns to God.'
The dust and the spirit.
So here was a clue,
My man was not one, my man was two,
Yet two into one so closely bound
Neither I, nor my friends, the secret had found.
Now the truth glimpsed I at last, 'though dim,
The body was his, but the spirit was him.
His body was a worn out garment of flesh
That to the flames was thrown,
But he lives on in the presence of Christ
With a body no mortal has known.
This is God's promise and this I believe,
It is stated in his word.
To equate a casket of ashes with a man
Is really quite absurd.
'What are your wishes?' the letter said.
It seems unimportant now;
To scatter or to keep--neither make me weep
Or bring furrows to my brow.
His ashes I'll group with his suit and his shoes,
They're just part of the clothes he wore.
The spirit that is him lives on with Christ
And will live for evermore.

Arthur Pigdon

 

Thanks to Arthur Pigdon for permission to publish this online edition of The Pigdon Papers.

Copyright © 2001 by Arthur Pigdon

Electronic text provided by Colvil Smith. HTML rendering by Ernie Stefanik.
Created 19 May 2000. Revised by the author 7 April 2001.
Back to Arthur Pigdon Page
Back to Restoration Movement Texts Page
Back to Restoration Movement in Australia Page