Recently, while out jogging, I was listening to a particular album which made me ponder the following question – how many albums do I own that have more than one truly outstanding song on them? I’m not talking about albums with lots of good, or even lots of excellent songs on them (for I own many of those), but those with more than one at the true height of sublime songcraftery, the kind of songs that subconsciously you are waiting for even while enjoying the rest of the album. The life-affecting songs, the truly epic. These songs must be serious candidates for a 50 song shortlist to take to a desert island. With the standard bar set suitably high, I undertook a survey of my music collection to see which albums manage to score more than once (greatest hits etc do not count).
The results were interesting. There were a number of my favourite albums on there, but also many which would not feature in my all time top 20 album list. There were a couple which are not even my favourite album by that particular band. Only one band has two albums on the list. More incidentally (or is it?) there is a distinct clustering to the back end of the alphabet. Only one album would commonly be considered ‘worship’ music. Only two albums pre-date the 1990s. Two albums had three songs on them that made the grade. But perhaps most surprisingly, three of my favourite bands – Idlewild, R.E.M. and Blur – did not get a single album onto the list.
So, in alphabetical order by artist, I present the 17 I own albums containing more than one truly outstanding song (songs listed in parentheses):
The Decline of British Sea Power (Fear of drowning, Carrion, Lately) – British Sea Power
Grace (Grace, Hallelujah) – Jeff Buckley
An End has a Start (Smokers outside the hospital doors, The weight of the world) - Editors
Asleep in the Back (Powder blue, Newborn) – Elbow
No Name Face (Hanging by a moment, Simon, Quasimodo) – Lifehouse
This is my Truth, Tell me Yours (The Everlasting, If you tolerate your children will be next) – Manic Street Preachers
(what’s the story?) Morning Glory (Don’t look back in anger, Some might say) – Oasis
OK Computer (Exit music (for a film), Lucky) – Radiohead
The Low Sparked of High Heeled Boys (The low sparked of high heeled boys, Many a mile to freedom) – Traffic
() (untitled 3, untitled 8) – Sigur Ros
Takk (Glossoli, Milano) – Sigur Ros
The Queen is Dead (Cemetry gates, There is a light that never goes out) – The Smiths
Harmonies for the Haunted (Lost in time, On my own) – Stellastarr*
Dog Man Star (The wild ones, New generation) – Suede
Arriving (Your grace is enough, Mighty is the power of the cross) – Chris Tomlin
All that you can’t Leave Behind (Beautiful Day, Walk On) – U2
My Secret is my Silence (I came in from the mountains, Every line of a long moment) – Roddy Woomble
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Saturday, 24 March 2012
Christian Free Schools Part 2 - Questions Answered
Readers, thank you for your patience in recent weeks - it has been an intense time of ministry at church and activity in home life, hence writing fell to the back burner. But here is part two of my series on Christian free schools. There are only four questions here, that focus on principles rather than practise, but I hope that there is the essence of response to most questions embedded somewhere within these musings. Please feel free to ask me any other questions in the comments section.
Should churches be spending their time establishing free schools when there are so many other core ministries to focus on?
This question is really a question about the doctrine of the local church – what should its activities encompass and exclude? For centuries, the church has seen education as within its remit, under the biblical exhortations of both discipleship (providing an environment for children to develop a Christian mind) and neighbour-love (providing a truly loving educational option to those outside the church as well as within). It also speaks of a mindset that embraces Christ’s Lordship over all rather than over just a delineated ‘spiritual’ field of existence. So while a church can’t offer an effective education ministry without core teaching, fellowship and pastoral ministries in place, free schools should not be considered as a distraction form these things, but as a blossoming of the holistic mission of the local church.
Shouldn’t the state determine how its people are educated?
It has been interesting in the current debate surrounding same-sex ‘marriage’ that the question of ‘who owns marriage?’ is being asked and discussed. This follows a vacuous silence on the issue of the origin of morality and right in UK, the unspoken assumption being that it is the elected assemblies of state governance that author such matters, expressed through law. This is highly disturbing, as by assuming the state has the right to dictate the moral narrative, one hands those in government carte blanche for totalitarianism at the deepest level – the human and the moral. To avoid such a moral fascism, the source of right must be seen to be either God (for the theist) or some higher, universal-human, inherent code of right (for the atheist/humanist), under which governments must be subservient. Thus for a state to assume the right to define marriage is tyranny – it is an institution fundamental to humanity that stands above culture, ethnicity and democratic whim. The same principles apply to education – the state’s involvement in education is to be warmly welcomed where the instruction is shaped by truth and right, but when the state assumes to define what these are we have intellectual (and hence educational) tyranny. Of course, there are a vast array of parental groups with different views on how ‘truth’ and ‘right’ are to be expressed, which is the beauty of Free Schools – those convicted of the need for education to be founded on ‘higher’ (i.e. those beyond human authorship) principles have the freedom to do so. So while state education is to be warmly welcomed, insistence by the state on the right to educate every child in the realm in the way it sees fit rather than respecting parental right is to be fiercely resisted, especially when the education offered has a faulty notion or no notion of transcendent right.
Won’t establishing Christian schools create further social division?
This is a searching question, to which I would make four points. Firstly, social division has roots that are far deeper than the curriculum taught at schools. Thus it is an easy way out of facing wider social problems to point the decisive finger at schools. But this is not to say that certain curriculae don't exacerbate social divisions- witness the varied shades of fundamentalist schools that flourish globally. So the question has to weigh the curriculum itself, thus asking ‘does a Christian-founded education create social division?’, to which the answer is (or at least should be) is no. So, secondly, Christian education is a source of social unity, not division. How so? Primarily because the ethic of Christianity is peace not war, servanthood rather than self-assertion, love not hate, setting humans united under God rather than divided against each other, for social harmony and not discord. The list could continue. There is so much truth in the adage that ‘if you surrender the Fatherhood of God you quickly lose the Brotherhood of Man’, the loss of which inevitably leads to social division. Thus a truly Christian education is the best hope for social unity. Thirdly, Muslim and Sikh groups have accelerated out of the blocks far faster than Christian groups in the Free School stakes, and thus if one takes the view that ‘religious’ schools cause division, then it isn’t the small number of Christian Free schools that should be one’s primary concern. Fourthly, Christian schools are unlikely to receive government approval unless their admission policies include a significant proportion of place-selection to be awarded to non-churched families – in the case of our church’s proposed school that figure is 50%. So the idea that such schools would become church ‘ghettos’ detached from their communities and uninvolved in wider social transformation is a fallacy. In short, Christian schools will largely be founded for the good of all and open to all, not just for a few well connected well-to-do church folk.
Won’t more Christian schools lead to a flight of Christian teachers from LEA-run state schools leading to a further secularising of those institutions?
This is an acute and sensitive question, but one to which again I think the answer is no. How so? Firstly, Free Schools are released from normal recruitment policies of LEA-run schools, meaning that anyone (subject to rigorous checks of course) can be employed as a teacher – they do not need a teaching qualification. So while Christian Free Schools are likely to employ those who share their ethos, this doesn’t automatically mean the source of such teachers are Christians in LEA-schools. Secondly, many teachers I know teach in LEA schools to be ‘salt and light’ and serve their communities, so the idea that they will all run away to free schools is an affront to their dedication and commitment. Thirdly, even if there is some shifting of teachers from LEA to free schools, all the evidence has shown that having a strong centre of Christian education in an area is to the health of all Christians involved in education, regardless of whether they are based within or outside that centre. Having said all that it is vital that churches involved in free schools do not fail in their duty to equip, disciple and encourage teachers in all schools, otherwise the above observations become meaningless in practise.
Should churches be spending their time establishing free schools when there are so many other core ministries to focus on?
This question is really a question about the doctrine of the local church – what should its activities encompass and exclude? For centuries, the church has seen education as within its remit, under the biblical exhortations of both discipleship (providing an environment for children to develop a Christian mind) and neighbour-love (providing a truly loving educational option to those outside the church as well as within). It also speaks of a mindset that embraces Christ’s Lordship over all rather than over just a delineated ‘spiritual’ field of existence. So while a church can’t offer an effective education ministry without core teaching, fellowship and pastoral ministries in place, free schools should not be considered as a distraction form these things, but as a blossoming of the holistic mission of the local church.
Shouldn’t the state determine how its people are educated?
It has been interesting in the current debate surrounding same-sex ‘marriage’ that the question of ‘who owns marriage?’ is being asked and discussed. This follows a vacuous silence on the issue of the origin of morality and right in UK, the unspoken assumption being that it is the elected assemblies of state governance that author such matters, expressed through law. This is highly disturbing, as by assuming the state has the right to dictate the moral narrative, one hands those in government carte blanche for totalitarianism at the deepest level – the human and the moral. To avoid such a moral fascism, the source of right must be seen to be either God (for the theist) or some higher, universal-human, inherent code of right (for the atheist/humanist), under which governments must be subservient. Thus for a state to assume the right to define marriage is tyranny – it is an institution fundamental to humanity that stands above culture, ethnicity and democratic whim. The same principles apply to education – the state’s involvement in education is to be warmly welcomed where the instruction is shaped by truth and right, but when the state assumes to define what these are we have intellectual (and hence educational) tyranny. Of course, there are a vast array of parental groups with different views on how ‘truth’ and ‘right’ are to be expressed, which is the beauty of Free Schools – those convicted of the need for education to be founded on ‘higher’ (i.e. those beyond human authorship) principles have the freedom to do so. So while state education is to be warmly welcomed, insistence by the state on the right to educate every child in the realm in the way it sees fit rather than respecting parental right is to be fiercely resisted, especially when the education offered has a faulty notion or no notion of transcendent right.
Won’t establishing Christian schools create further social division?
This is a searching question, to which I would make four points. Firstly, social division has roots that are far deeper than the curriculum taught at schools. Thus it is an easy way out of facing wider social problems to point the decisive finger at schools. But this is not to say that certain curriculae don't exacerbate social divisions- witness the varied shades of fundamentalist schools that flourish globally. So the question has to weigh the curriculum itself, thus asking ‘does a Christian-founded education create social division?’, to which the answer is (or at least should be) is no. So, secondly, Christian education is a source of social unity, not division. How so? Primarily because the ethic of Christianity is peace not war, servanthood rather than self-assertion, love not hate, setting humans united under God rather than divided against each other, for social harmony and not discord. The list could continue. There is so much truth in the adage that ‘if you surrender the Fatherhood of God you quickly lose the Brotherhood of Man’, the loss of which inevitably leads to social division. Thus a truly Christian education is the best hope for social unity. Thirdly, Muslim and Sikh groups have accelerated out of the blocks far faster than Christian groups in the Free School stakes, and thus if one takes the view that ‘religious’ schools cause division, then it isn’t the small number of Christian Free schools that should be one’s primary concern. Fourthly, Christian schools are unlikely to receive government approval unless their admission policies include a significant proportion of place-selection to be awarded to non-churched families – in the case of our church’s proposed school that figure is 50%. So the idea that such schools would become church ‘ghettos’ detached from their communities and uninvolved in wider social transformation is a fallacy. In short, Christian schools will largely be founded for the good of all and open to all, not just for a few well connected well-to-do church folk.
Won’t more Christian schools lead to a flight of Christian teachers from LEA-run state schools leading to a further secularising of those institutions?
This is an acute and sensitive question, but one to which again I think the answer is no. How so? Firstly, Free Schools are released from normal recruitment policies of LEA-run schools, meaning that anyone (subject to rigorous checks of course) can be employed as a teacher – they do not need a teaching qualification. So while Christian Free Schools are likely to employ those who share their ethos, this doesn’t automatically mean the source of such teachers are Christians in LEA-schools. Secondly, many teachers I know teach in LEA schools to be ‘salt and light’ and serve their communities, so the idea that they will all run away to free schools is an affront to their dedication and commitment. Thirdly, even if there is some shifting of teachers from LEA to free schools, all the evidence has shown that having a strong centre of Christian education in an area is to the health of all Christians involved in education, regardless of whether they are based within or outside that centre. Having said all that it is vital that churches involved in free schools do not fail in their duty to equip, disciple and encourage teachers in all schools, otherwise the above observations become meaningless in practise.
Monday, 27 February 2012
Cycling - Spring Monument Predictions
Having only followed pro-cycling for around ten months, I’ve decided to publicly embarrass myself with some predictions for the forthcoming ‘Spring Monuments’ (Milan-San Remo; Tour of Flanders; Paris-Roubaix; Liege-Bastogne-Liege). So here goes…
Milan – San Remo: Andre Greipel
Tour of Flanders: Tom Boonen
Paris – Roubaix: Juan Antonio Flecha
Liege – Bastogne – Liege: Philippe Gilbert
Would be happy with 1 out of 4.
Milan – San Remo: Andre Greipel
Tour of Flanders: Tom Boonen
Paris – Roubaix: Juan Antonio Flecha
Liege – Bastogne – Liege: Philippe Gilbert
Would be happy with 1 out of 4.
Sunday, 12 February 2012
A Royal Priesthood (talk transcript)
A transcript of a talk I gave last week, unedited.
----------------------------------------------
I was reading the local news a couple of weeks ago, and discovered to my alarm that our very own Quayside was invaded by hostile forces! And we’re not talking about contemporary art lovers or stag weekends, but actual soldiers with guns and marines with boats. Fortunately the whole thing was just a military exercise, and apart from worrying a few locals, left no lasting damage to the city. But the exercise was apparently very successful, with the invaders invading, the defenders defending, the medics mediccing and the support staff supporting. In what was designed to be a ‘war simulation zone’, all the players knew their role and acted accordingly.
Contrast their attitudes with those of the four players in this bizarre game of Monopoly. It became apparent very quickly in this game, that the top hat had no ambition beyond going round the board as many times as possible, as quickly as possible. He never stopped to buy anything, but just kept on rolling. Odd as that was, the dog behaved in an even stranger way, rejoicing every time he had to pay tax or a utility bill. Meanwhile the car attempted to keep out of trouble by sitting in jail all game, and the iron spent all his money building hotels on chance and community chest squares. Now to win at Monopoly you have to be a ruthless capitalist, crushing your opponents under your superior material acquisition, but none of these players grasped that – rather the top hat thought he was an athlete, the dog became a convinced communist, the car was a complete coward and the iron was simply a nut case. Unlike the cadets and soldiers in the Quayside exercise, the Monopoly players simply did not understand who they were or what they were meant to be doing.
And those two questions – who are we? and what are meant to be doing? – are vital questions to ask ourselves, both as individual Christians and as the collective body of Christ. If we turn in our bibles to the reading we have just heard, in verse 9 Peter describes the church as ‘a royal priesthood’, a single phrase which gets to heart of what it is to be and to live as Christians. So in the few minutes I have tonight I’d like us to explore the idea of ‘a royal priesthood’ with these two questions – what does it mean to be a royal priesthood? And what does it look like to live as a royal priesthood?
So firstly, what does it mean to be a royal priesthood?
To return briefly to military analogy, the ‘royal’ in the Royal Navy indicates two things – that it is the possession of the Queen, and also that it has been commissioned by the Queen. And the word ‘royal’ operates in the same way in verse 9–we belong to God and we are commissioned by God. But who exactly who belongs to this royal priesthood? Peter makes it clear in verse 10 that it is all those who have received the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. And this is a wonderful thing – for just as the whole world is invited to receive mercy in Christ Jesus, all those who take up that offer become the possession of God and part of this royal priesthood.
So that’s the royal part. What about the priesthood? Priesthood can evoke images of Old Testament Israel, where those descended from Aaron, the Levites, were appointed to offer sacrifices in order to mediate between God and humans. But the book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that Jesus has permanently fulfilled the necessity to make atoning sacrifice for human sin, and that faith in Christ is the qualification to access the living God, rather than a visit to an appointed priest. Peter thus can’t be suggesting that the New Testament priesthood is about providing access to God, so what does he have in mind? We get a hint in verse 5 of our reading, where he commands that the royal priesthood offer “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Christ Jesus”. But what exactly does that mean?
Well, to get a true idea of what the royal priesthood should look like, we have to go back to the Old Testament. But not to Israel’s priesthood. That priesthood operated as it did because the rebellion of Humankind meant that mediation through the sacrifice of blood was necessary to maintain relationship between a just God and a rebellious nation. But Israel’s priesthood was neither the first priesthood nor the model of what God intended priesthood to be. Rather, we need to go back to the creation-order itself. We see in the early chapters of Genesis and indeed throughout the Old Testament, God’s purpose for creating Humans as his image-bearers on Earth was that they would bring God’s rule to bear on Earth and gather the praises of the Earth to God. This is the true priesthood and the pattern of priesthood that we are to follow; indeed it was the design of creation that all humans would be priests, but this calling was surrendered by Humans as one of the consequences of rebellion against God. Wonderfully, the priesthood has now been restored to the church of Christ. So these “acceptable spiritual sacrifices” spoken of by Peter are all of the fruits of the church of Christ seeking once again to fulfil this priestly role of bringing the rule of God to bear on Earth and of gathering the Earth’s praise to God.
So what exactly does this mean for us? And how do we go about fulfilling this call? This brings me to my second question: what does it look like to live as a royal priesthood?
If we begin with our attitudes, the Epistles highlight three virtues that should especially mark the followers of Jesus and so should be distinctives of the royal priesthood. These are “faith, hope and love”, a trio exhorted by Paul in 1 Corinthians, Colossians and 1 Thessalonians. So as a priesthood we must have real faith in the goodness, promises and word of the God we are seeking to serve and praise, otherwise our efforts will at best be half-hearted and at worst a vanity parade. We must hope for the return of our king Jesus, as without hope of a perfect and united New Earth and New Heavens, we will neither have the vision to herald the reign of God nor the motivation to persevere in our priesthood. And we must love, for in commanding us to “love the Lord our God with all of our hearts and to love our neighbour as ourselves”, Jesus has established love rather than military might or philosophical brilliance to be the means by which His people should seek to live and make him known. So faith, hope and love are to be our priestly attitudes.
What about our actions? In short, the priestly call encompasses the whole life of the church, but there are four tasks in particular that scripture presents as central to this call. Firstly, is the task proclamation. If a king is going to be obeyed and worshipped, he must send heralds into the realm to proclaim his kingship. So we must boldly, unashamedly and urgently proclaim to the whole world that Christ Jesus is the King. Secondly, there is the task of humble service. Jesus leaves us in no doubt that the Christian life is one of putting others’ interests first and seeking their good ahead of our own. Indeed this is the practical fruit of the virtue of love, and highlights again that the priesthood is not to bring God’s rule on Earth through arrogance and muscle, but through a willing outpouring of our lives in service for the good of others and the glory of God.
Thirdly is the task to pray. Prayer is the supreme means that God has given us to seek to bring his rule upon Earth. We are appointed as intercessors to the king, and God has so ordered things that the welfare of all creation, its people, its cities and its nations, are dependent on our prayers. This is sobering when we consider the slowness and dispassion that is so often the experience of our prayer life. But let me balance this with an encouragement, in that I’m certain that without the faithful praying of this church over the years, that both our life as a church and the well-being of this city would be in a far worse state than they are. And let us take heart for tonight’s meeting, that by seeking the good of the Earth and the glory of God through our prayers, we are truly being God’s royal priesthood.
These three tasks - proclamation, humble service and prayer - come under the “God to Earth” dimension of priesthood, so what about the “Earth to God” dimension? Well this is where the final task comes into play, namely the task of praise. Praise encompasses all aspects of thankfulness and thanksgiving, and in our passage in verse 9 Peter exhorts the church to “declare the praises of him who brought us out of the darkness and into his glorious light”. In light of His glorious redeeming work, there is no limit on the type or amount of praise that should be rendered to God. Yet scripture does proscribe a special union between praise and music. We see this throughout the Old Testament and supremely in the Psalter, but also in the New Testament – through Paul encouraging both the Ephesian and Colossian churches to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, and through the inclusion in scripture of early church hymns, such as the ‘Christ the servant’ hymn in Philippians 2. The royal priesthood is thus charged calling every heart to give thanks to the Lord Jesus, singing praise to the Mighty King and leading the whole creation in doing so!
I’d like to conclude by exhorting us not to make the mistake of the Monopoly players, but rather to remember who we are, and what we are called to do. We should rejoice to be part of this amazingly-called royal priesthood and at having the creation-purpose of our humanity restored by the mercy of God. So tonight may we pray with desperate and longing hearts to see God’s Spirit move to transform people’s lives, that he may bring people out of their darkness and that they may bring Him praise. Let us give thanks for the growth he has granted us, but not to be satisfied until every tongue on Tyneside, and indeed throughout all creation, confesses that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to the praise of God the Father.
----------------------------------------------
I was reading the local news a couple of weeks ago, and discovered to my alarm that our very own Quayside was invaded by hostile forces! And we’re not talking about contemporary art lovers or stag weekends, but actual soldiers with guns and marines with boats. Fortunately the whole thing was just a military exercise, and apart from worrying a few locals, left no lasting damage to the city. But the exercise was apparently very successful, with the invaders invading, the defenders defending, the medics mediccing and the support staff supporting. In what was designed to be a ‘war simulation zone’, all the players knew their role and acted accordingly.
Contrast their attitudes with those of the four players in this bizarre game of Monopoly. It became apparent very quickly in this game, that the top hat had no ambition beyond going round the board as many times as possible, as quickly as possible. He never stopped to buy anything, but just kept on rolling. Odd as that was, the dog behaved in an even stranger way, rejoicing every time he had to pay tax or a utility bill. Meanwhile the car attempted to keep out of trouble by sitting in jail all game, and the iron spent all his money building hotels on chance and community chest squares. Now to win at Monopoly you have to be a ruthless capitalist, crushing your opponents under your superior material acquisition, but none of these players grasped that – rather the top hat thought he was an athlete, the dog became a convinced communist, the car was a complete coward and the iron was simply a nut case. Unlike the cadets and soldiers in the Quayside exercise, the Monopoly players simply did not understand who they were or what they were meant to be doing.
And those two questions – who are we? and what are meant to be doing? – are vital questions to ask ourselves, both as individual Christians and as the collective body of Christ. If we turn in our bibles to the reading we have just heard, in verse 9 Peter describes the church as ‘a royal priesthood’, a single phrase which gets to heart of what it is to be and to live as Christians. So in the few minutes I have tonight I’d like us to explore the idea of ‘a royal priesthood’ with these two questions – what does it mean to be a royal priesthood? And what does it look like to live as a royal priesthood?
So firstly, what does it mean to be a royal priesthood?
To return briefly to military analogy, the ‘royal’ in the Royal Navy indicates two things – that it is the possession of the Queen, and also that it has been commissioned by the Queen. And the word ‘royal’ operates in the same way in verse 9–we belong to God and we are commissioned by God. But who exactly who belongs to this royal priesthood? Peter makes it clear in verse 10 that it is all those who have received the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. And this is a wonderful thing – for just as the whole world is invited to receive mercy in Christ Jesus, all those who take up that offer become the possession of God and part of this royal priesthood.
So that’s the royal part. What about the priesthood? Priesthood can evoke images of Old Testament Israel, where those descended from Aaron, the Levites, were appointed to offer sacrifices in order to mediate between God and humans. But the book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that Jesus has permanently fulfilled the necessity to make atoning sacrifice for human sin, and that faith in Christ is the qualification to access the living God, rather than a visit to an appointed priest. Peter thus can’t be suggesting that the New Testament priesthood is about providing access to God, so what does he have in mind? We get a hint in verse 5 of our reading, where he commands that the royal priesthood offer “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Christ Jesus”. But what exactly does that mean?
Well, to get a true idea of what the royal priesthood should look like, we have to go back to the Old Testament. But not to Israel’s priesthood. That priesthood operated as it did because the rebellion of Humankind meant that mediation through the sacrifice of blood was necessary to maintain relationship between a just God and a rebellious nation. But Israel’s priesthood was neither the first priesthood nor the model of what God intended priesthood to be. Rather, we need to go back to the creation-order itself. We see in the early chapters of Genesis and indeed throughout the Old Testament, God’s purpose for creating Humans as his image-bearers on Earth was that they would bring God’s rule to bear on Earth and gather the praises of the Earth to God. This is the true priesthood and the pattern of priesthood that we are to follow; indeed it was the design of creation that all humans would be priests, but this calling was surrendered by Humans as one of the consequences of rebellion against God. Wonderfully, the priesthood has now been restored to the church of Christ. So these “acceptable spiritual sacrifices” spoken of by Peter are all of the fruits of the church of Christ seeking once again to fulfil this priestly role of bringing the rule of God to bear on Earth and of gathering the Earth’s praise to God.
So what exactly does this mean for us? And how do we go about fulfilling this call? This brings me to my second question: what does it look like to live as a royal priesthood?
If we begin with our attitudes, the Epistles highlight three virtues that should especially mark the followers of Jesus and so should be distinctives of the royal priesthood. These are “faith, hope and love”, a trio exhorted by Paul in 1 Corinthians, Colossians and 1 Thessalonians. So as a priesthood we must have real faith in the goodness, promises and word of the God we are seeking to serve and praise, otherwise our efforts will at best be half-hearted and at worst a vanity parade. We must hope for the return of our king Jesus, as without hope of a perfect and united New Earth and New Heavens, we will neither have the vision to herald the reign of God nor the motivation to persevere in our priesthood. And we must love, for in commanding us to “love the Lord our God with all of our hearts and to love our neighbour as ourselves”, Jesus has established love rather than military might or philosophical brilliance to be the means by which His people should seek to live and make him known. So faith, hope and love are to be our priestly attitudes.
What about our actions? In short, the priestly call encompasses the whole life of the church, but there are four tasks in particular that scripture presents as central to this call. Firstly, is the task proclamation. If a king is going to be obeyed and worshipped, he must send heralds into the realm to proclaim his kingship. So we must boldly, unashamedly and urgently proclaim to the whole world that Christ Jesus is the King. Secondly, there is the task of humble service. Jesus leaves us in no doubt that the Christian life is one of putting others’ interests first and seeking their good ahead of our own. Indeed this is the practical fruit of the virtue of love, and highlights again that the priesthood is not to bring God’s rule on Earth through arrogance and muscle, but through a willing outpouring of our lives in service for the good of others and the glory of God.
Thirdly is the task to pray. Prayer is the supreme means that God has given us to seek to bring his rule upon Earth. We are appointed as intercessors to the king, and God has so ordered things that the welfare of all creation, its people, its cities and its nations, are dependent on our prayers. This is sobering when we consider the slowness and dispassion that is so often the experience of our prayer life. But let me balance this with an encouragement, in that I’m certain that without the faithful praying of this church over the years, that both our life as a church and the well-being of this city would be in a far worse state than they are. And let us take heart for tonight’s meeting, that by seeking the good of the Earth and the glory of God through our prayers, we are truly being God’s royal priesthood.
These three tasks - proclamation, humble service and prayer - come under the “God to Earth” dimension of priesthood, so what about the “Earth to God” dimension? Well this is where the final task comes into play, namely the task of praise. Praise encompasses all aspects of thankfulness and thanksgiving, and in our passage in verse 9 Peter exhorts the church to “declare the praises of him who brought us out of the darkness and into his glorious light”. In light of His glorious redeeming work, there is no limit on the type or amount of praise that should be rendered to God. Yet scripture does proscribe a special union between praise and music. We see this throughout the Old Testament and supremely in the Psalter, but also in the New Testament – through Paul encouraging both the Ephesian and Colossian churches to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, and through the inclusion in scripture of early church hymns, such as the ‘Christ the servant’ hymn in Philippians 2. The royal priesthood is thus charged calling every heart to give thanks to the Lord Jesus, singing praise to the Mighty King and leading the whole creation in doing so!
I’d like to conclude by exhorting us not to make the mistake of the Monopoly players, but rather to remember who we are, and what we are called to do. We should rejoice to be part of this amazingly-called royal priesthood and at having the creation-purpose of our humanity restored by the mercy of God. So tonight may we pray with desperate and longing hearts to see God’s Spirit move to transform people’s lives, that he may bring people out of their darkness and that they may bring Him praise. Let us give thanks for the growth he has granted us, but not to be satisfied until every tongue on Tyneside, and indeed throughout all creation, confesses that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to the praise of God the Father.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Christian Free Schools - a good idea?
My church is in the process of putting in an application to open a new school, under the Free Schools legislation enacted by the Coalition government. It would be an all-through school (i.e. covering ages 4-18), open to all and with a curriculum founded on the Christian world view. This has led many in our congregation to think carefully about whether establishing such schools is a wise effort or not. While there are objections that need to be answered, my conclusion is that establishing such schools should be an absolute priority for churches and church groups across the nation. I will consider and respond to objections in a sequel post.
While there are doubtless others, I would propose six major justifications for seeking to launch new Christian Free Schools (CFSs henceforth):
1. CFSs mobilise the church to thorough and active involvement in education. The central truth of the Christian faith - that Jesus is Lord - demands that his followers (i.e. the church) seek positive involvement in all spheres of life, whether that be the grand pursuits of politics, scientific discovery and spiritual well-being, or more 'everyday' things such as cookery, sport and coffee mornings. Thus education - the instruction of a human into all truth and flourishing - must surely be close to the heart of the Christian call. The church must be actively involved in education if it is to fulfil its mandate of being 'Christ's body on Earth'.
2. CFSs return revelation and reason to the heart of education. It is not too much of a simplification to say that the whole weight of western thought (and consequent civil development) rests upon two pillars: Proverbs 1:7a - "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" and the philosophy of Aristotle. Or to put it another way, upon the dual strands of revelation and reason. Revelation in the sense that what we can know about the world we know because it has been revealed by God, and all our endeavours to understand the universe will warp, reduce and ultimately fail to make sense of things unless we keep God as an unmoving banner over it all; reason in the sense that we have been given rational minds able to assess moral, social and material questions with agreed and rational method. This marriage of the ancient revelation of God and Aristotelian method has marked Christian thought throughout its history. Sadly, these epistemological foundations seem little understood or practised in much of mainstream education. Instead there is a dangerously utilitarian drift that sees education’s core goal as teaching that which is needed ‘to get by in the world’: the skills to make money and the opinions that will keep us from offending. I’m not at all suggesting that education should be all theory and no practise, but when it all is utility that is not anchored in the wider development of the whole human within a cohesive framework of thought, we educate our children as if they were robots and not humans. This is a shameful error, and one which will reap negative social consequences. A free school has the freedom to teach the classical disciplines that are vital to rectifying this error – epistemology, logic, philosophy, reason and theology.
3. CFSs challenge the view that the state has ultimate authority over the education of its people. Throughout history the right and responsibility to educate a child has been commonly understood to rest with its parents or guardians; this of course does not mean that the parents have to be the sole providers of education, but they have the authority to decide what kind of education their child gets. Different ages have seen guardians send their children to a remarkable range of institutions or to none, and theirs is the ultimate burden to ‘make or break’ the child. This right and responsibility was challenged by both the right- and left-wing totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century, and sadly became the mindset of many (including, critically, many in positions of power) in the social democracies that emerged after those dark years. That the state provides education is a positive to be celebrated – indeed fee-less Free Schools would not be possible without state support for education – but when that provision becomes, whether by design or by culture, a hegemony over the responsibilities of guardians rather than being subservient to it, we are in a dangerous place. Not that this has necessarily happened in every LEA-run school, but survey after survey is showing a growing gulf between parental aspirations and the on-the-ground reality of education, and a new wave of schools that offer something different and come closer to meeting parental aspiration must be seen as a social good, as it will encourage guardians to truly think through how their child ought to be educated.
4. CFSs are a powerful reverser of social deprivation. Free Schools are able to set their own admissions policies, and thus able to positively discriminate towards those from areas of relative social deprivation. There are no ‘catchment’ areas to speak of. By committing to taking in an over-sized proportion of those from less privileged backgrounds into a high-quality educational environment for a period of upto 14 years, a significant improvement in the well-being of those students (and indeed their families and communities) can be confidently forecast. It is a route out of the ‘post-code’ trap, where middle class families are able to monopolise the best of state-provided services through their mobility advantages over the poorer.
5. CFSs offer vital flexibility of curriculum, teaching personnel and method. This is at the heart of the Free School vision, with each school being able to propose their curriculum, their staffing strategy and pattern of school life with remarkable freedom. This gives wonderful flexibility for schools to cater to any in-demand style of school that simply does not exist in a particular locality, and to shape the school according specific local needs. For example, there are high levels of economic stagnation in the North East of England, so a new Free School could particularly work on the development of entrepreneurial skills and vision amongst its pupils.
6. CFSs allow the most powerful educational resource of all to be unleashed - the gospel. The gospel Jesus Christ is not only the most important thing for every human to know, but due to its transformatory nature it is also the deepest and most powerful source of social capital. A school whose staff, pupils, practises and philosophies are rooted in the gospel will experience the wonderful fruit that Jesus promises such a grounding will bring – a true community of love, a community where all are valued, a community of joyful discipline, a community with purpose, a teleos community. I’m sure most guardians in the land would jump at the opportunity to send their children to such a school free of charge.
So, I'm praying our application to open a Free School is approved, and that many more Christian Free Schools would emerge across the United Kingdom.
While there are doubtless others, I would propose six major justifications for seeking to launch new Christian Free Schools (CFSs henceforth):
1. CFSs mobilise the church to thorough and active involvement in education. The central truth of the Christian faith - that Jesus is Lord - demands that his followers (i.e. the church) seek positive involvement in all spheres of life, whether that be the grand pursuits of politics, scientific discovery and spiritual well-being, or more 'everyday' things such as cookery, sport and coffee mornings. Thus education - the instruction of a human into all truth and flourishing - must surely be close to the heart of the Christian call. The church must be actively involved in education if it is to fulfil its mandate of being 'Christ's body on Earth'.
2. CFSs return revelation and reason to the heart of education. It is not too much of a simplification to say that the whole weight of western thought (and consequent civil development) rests upon two pillars: Proverbs 1:7a - "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" and the philosophy of Aristotle. Or to put it another way, upon the dual strands of revelation and reason. Revelation in the sense that what we can know about the world we know because it has been revealed by God, and all our endeavours to understand the universe will warp, reduce and ultimately fail to make sense of things unless we keep God as an unmoving banner over it all; reason in the sense that we have been given rational minds able to assess moral, social and material questions with agreed and rational method. This marriage of the ancient revelation of God and Aristotelian method has marked Christian thought throughout its history. Sadly, these epistemological foundations seem little understood or practised in much of mainstream education. Instead there is a dangerously utilitarian drift that sees education’s core goal as teaching that which is needed ‘to get by in the world’: the skills to make money and the opinions that will keep us from offending. I’m not at all suggesting that education should be all theory and no practise, but when it all is utility that is not anchored in the wider development of the whole human within a cohesive framework of thought, we educate our children as if they were robots and not humans. This is a shameful error, and one which will reap negative social consequences. A free school has the freedom to teach the classical disciplines that are vital to rectifying this error – epistemology, logic, philosophy, reason and theology.
3. CFSs challenge the view that the state has ultimate authority over the education of its people. Throughout history the right and responsibility to educate a child has been commonly understood to rest with its parents or guardians; this of course does not mean that the parents have to be the sole providers of education, but they have the authority to decide what kind of education their child gets. Different ages have seen guardians send their children to a remarkable range of institutions or to none, and theirs is the ultimate burden to ‘make or break’ the child. This right and responsibility was challenged by both the right- and left-wing totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century, and sadly became the mindset of many (including, critically, many in positions of power) in the social democracies that emerged after those dark years. That the state provides education is a positive to be celebrated – indeed fee-less Free Schools would not be possible without state support for education – but when that provision becomes, whether by design or by culture, a hegemony over the responsibilities of guardians rather than being subservient to it, we are in a dangerous place. Not that this has necessarily happened in every LEA-run school, but survey after survey is showing a growing gulf between parental aspirations and the on-the-ground reality of education, and a new wave of schools that offer something different and come closer to meeting parental aspiration must be seen as a social good, as it will encourage guardians to truly think through how their child ought to be educated.
4. CFSs are a powerful reverser of social deprivation. Free Schools are able to set their own admissions policies, and thus able to positively discriminate towards those from areas of relative social deprivation. There are no ‘catchment’ areas to speak of. By committing to taking in an over-sized proportion of those from less privileged backgrounds into a high-quality educational environment for a period of upto 14 years, a significant improvement in the well-being of those students (and indeed their families and communities) can be confidently forecast. It is a route out of the ‘post-code’ trap, where middle class families are able to monopolise the best of state-provided services through their mobility advantages over the poorer.
5. CFSs offer vital flexibility of curriculum, teaching personnel and method. This is at the heart of the Free School vision, with each school being able to propose their curriculum, their staffing strategy and pattern of school life with remarkable freedom. This gives wonderful flexibility for schools to cater to any in-demand style of school that simply does not exist in a particular locality, and to shape the school according specific local needs. For example, there are high levels of economic stagnation in the North East of England, so a new Free School could particularly work on the development of entrepreneurial skills and vision amongst its pupils.
6. CFSs allow the most powerful educational resource of all to be unleashed - the gospel. The gospel Jesus Christ is not only the most important thing for every human to know, but due to its transformatory nature it is also the deepest and most powerful source of social capital. A school whose staff, pupils, practises and philosophies are rooted in the gospel will experience the wonderful fruit that Jesus promises such a grounding will bring – a true community of love, a community where all are valued, a community of joyful discipline, a community with purpose, a teleos community. I’m sure most guardians in the land would jump at the opportunity to send their children to such a school free of charge.
So, I'm praying our application to open a Free School is approved, and that many more Christian Free Schools would emerge across the United Kingdom.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Why play chess?
I recently came across this amusing quip from George Bernard Shaw: "Chess is a foolish expedient for making idle people believe they are doing something very clever when they are only wasting their time". But to any dabbler (or more serious player for that matter) it does pose an important question - is chess anything more than a hopeless waste of precious time?
I would like to suggest that chess is not entirely a waste of time, for the following reason:
1 - It is an arena of battle. It is important for those of us who don't get caked in mud on a pitch kicking/chasing a ball with 21/29 other people on a weekly basis to find other ways to experience the mindset and emotions of battle. Why? Well, there is a universal fight going on; of good against evil, of freedom against oppression, of God against all malevolent spiritual powers. True, a militaristic or macho outlook on life is not good - the humility of Christ is our example - but in our generally peaceful lives getting some fire to fight the good fight is a healthy undertaking.
2- It encourages strategic thinking. The ability to holistically assess a situation, develop goals and plot an outline of action to succeed is a valuable skill in almost any arena of life, with obvious application in enterprise, politics and campaigning.
3- It sharpens the mind. To carry out a strategy successfully, a myriad of close calculations requiring precise thinking are necessary, providing an excellent work out for the mind. Keeping the mind consistently agile has been shown to be one of the most effective preventative steps to dementia. It is also fairly beneficial to the rest of one's existence!
4- The globality of chess. There are few games that you can set up anywhere in the world and expect a good number of people to understand and play; perhaps football is the only rival. In a globalised world (if that is not a truism) it is a great boon to have an immediate common point of contact with people from any culture or background.
So, I think I will carry on playing the Game of Kings, but if I get too obsessed give me a tap on the shoulder...
I would like to suggest that chess is not entirely a waste of time, for the following reason:
1 - It is an arena of battle. It is important for those of us who don't get caked in mud on a pitch kicking/chasing a ball with 21/29 other people on a weekly basis to find other ways to experience the mindset and emotions of battle. Why? Well, there is a universal fight going on; of good against evil, of freedom against oppression, of God against all malevolent spiritual powers. True, a militaristic or macho outlook on life is not good - the humility of Christ is our example - but in our generally peaceful lives getting some fire to fight the good fight is a healthy undertaking.
2- It encourages strategic thinking. The ability to holistically assess a situation, develop goals and plot an outline of action to succeed is a valuable skill in almost any arena of life, with obvious application in enterprise, politics and campaigning.
3- It sharpens the mind. To carry out a strategy successfully, a myriad of close calculations requiring precise thinking are necessary, providing an excellent work out for the mind. Keeping the mind consistently agile has been shown to be one of the most effective preventative steps to dementia. It is also fairly beneficial to the rest of one's existence!
4- The globality of chess. There are few games that you can set up anywhere in the world and expect a good number of people to understand and play; perhaps football is the only rival. In a globalised world (if that is not a truism) it is a great boon to have an immediate common point of contact with people from any culture or background.
So, I think I will carry on playing the Game of Kings, but if I get too obsessed give me a tap on the shoulder...
Friday, 27 January 2012
What is the gospel?
On a recent long car journey, I listened to two thought-provoking audio interviews with Kevin de Young and Greg Gilbert, hosted by Mark Dever. They touched on a number of issues, including the question of 'what is the gospel?'.
Currently this questions is being robustly debated within evangelical Christianity. Given the movement is defined by its allegiance to the gospel, getting a right grasp of the gospel is a vital undertaking. Here is a basic summary of the two differing definitions of 'the gospel' on which the debate tends to centre:
(1) In order to define the gospel we need to look to the ministry of the disciples and the work and language of 'kingdom' used by Jesus in the gospels. Therefore the good news is essentially that Jesus is Lord and his kingdom is here for all who want to get on board.
(2) In order to define the gospel we need to look at the apostolic writings in the New Testament which focus in on the death of Jesus, describing it as a substitutionary death on our behalf. Therefore, the good news is that there is a way for us to be forgiven by God for our wrongdoing, if we repent of sin and trust in what Jesus has done for us.
The interviewees contend that the first position is not a description of the gospel while the second position is, while acknowledging that more could be said. Their rational for this position is that the apostles have a right to authoritatively interpret the work of Jesus in a way that we don't, citing John 15:26. On this point I agree. They also assert that position 1 is in fact not good news, as it makes no provision for reversing our rebellion against God, and therefore Jesus' Lordship is very bad news for us. On this point again, I agree.
However, on the broader assertion that position 2 is an adequate statement of the gospel, I disagree. Whereas position 1 speaks of Jesus' Lordship without speaking of his redemptive work, position 2 speaks of Jesus' redemptive work without speaking of his Lordship (interestingly echoed in the difference in emphases in Catholic and Reformed theology). This isolates God's work of redemption from his universal and eternal work, which makes no sense to unchristianised ears. So while I would not label position 2 as 'not the gospel', it appears to be an incomplete and perhaps even incomprehensible gospel.
So, what is the right way to define the gospel while remaining faithful both to the teaching of the gospels and the apostolic writings, and indeed to the whole sweep of scripture? I would argue that two preliminary things need to be established in answering this question; firstly, the attempt to divide the teaching of the gospels and the epistles is to create a false dichotomy - Jesus said much about his redemptive work (e.g. John 3: 14-18) and the apostles don't 'underplay' the Lordship of Jesus (e.g. Ephesians 1: 18-23).
Secondly, the best way to outline the good news of Christianity is in fact to outline the whole historical narrative from God's pre-creation existence through to his establishing of the eternal perfect kingdom(via creation, fall, the promise of restoration, the incarnation of Jesus, his life, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit and the work of God's people while awaiting his return). Therefore, any attempt to summarise the gospel will inevitably not be able to say everything, but must do justice to the heart of this wonderful narrative. Such a summary is a good and useful thing to have a grasp of, as we might not always have the opportunity or clarity of thought to outline the complete narrative in a conversational setting. And as aforementioned, a clear gospel outline is essential for confessional unity amongst Christians.
Here then is my attempt to define the gospel in a way that summarises the heart of the Christian message, uniting Jesus' lordship with his redemptive work, as succinctly as possible:
The good news of Christianity is that God is real, he is good, he is loving, he is just and he wants a relationship with humankind. One day he will banish all evil from Earth and establish an eternal kingdom of joy where all people who trust in him will forever live. But the shock is that rather than trust in him, all of us have rejected God's rule over our lives through preferring to do life our way, through worshiping and treasuring things above God, and through not living as we know we ought to have done as moral beings. This rejection of God has led to all the evil and imperfection that has plagued the Earth throughout history and that plagues life today. It resulted in bringing the greatest enemy of all upon us - namely death. Having rejected God, all humans rightly face God's judgement for this rebellion. But God, out of his love, didn't want to leave humankind in this state, and sent his son Jesus to the Earth to call us to turn from our sins and live with God as our Lord. Yet Jesus came not only to call us back to God but also to make that possible, for God being a just God couldn't overlook our wrongful rejection of him without punishing it. And Jesus made that possible by dying on a cross in the place of every human, taking the wrath of God that we deserve to face. Having died, God raised Jesus from the dead, guaranteeing the achievement of the cross, the overthrow of death and the reversal of the sad decay of the Earth. But this work of Christ isn't a get out of jail free card for everyone; rather we have a choice to make - do we receive the good news of life in Christ though trusting God's promises of forgiveness and setting our hearts against wrongdoing? Or do we continue living with ourselves as lord and reject or ignore the work of Jesus? The first leads to a true knowledge of God and everlasting fulness of life, while the second leads to judgement, death and a parting from all goodness.
Thoughts?
Currently this questions is being robustly debated within evangelical Christianity. Given the movement is defined by its allegiance to the gospel, getting a right grasp of the gospel is a vital undertaking. Here is a basic summary of the two differing definitions of 'the gospel' on which the debate tends to centre:
(1) In order to define the gospel we need to look to the ministry of the disciples and the work and language of 'kingdom' used by Jesus in the gospels. Therefore the good news is essentially that Jesus is Lord and his kingdom is here for all who want to get on board.
(2) In order to define the gospel we need to look at the apostolic writings in the New Testament which focus in on the death of Jesus, describing it as a substitutionary death on our behalf. Therefore, the good news is that there is a way for us to be forgiven by God for our wrongdoing, if we repent of sin and trust in what Jesus has done for us.
The interviewees contend that the first position is not a description of the gospel while the second position is, while acknowledging that more could be said. Their rational for this position is that the apostles have a right to authoritatively interpret the work of Jesus in a way that we don't, citing John 15:26. On this point I agree. They also assert that position 1 is in fact not good news, as it makes no provision for reversing our rebellion against God, and therefore Jesus' Lordship is very bad news for us. On this point again, I agree.
However, on the broader assertion that position 2 is an adequate statement of the gospel, I disagree. Whereas position 1 speaks of Jesus' Lordship without speaking of his redemptive work, position 2 speaks of Jesus' redemptive work without speaking of his Lordship (interestingly echoed in the difference in emphases in Catholic and Reformed theology). This isolates God's work of redemption from his universal and eternal work, which makes no sense to unchristianised ears. So while I would not label position 2 as 'not the gospel', it appears to be an incomplete and perhaps even incomprehensible gospel.
So, what is the right way to define the gospel while remaining faithful both to the teaching of the gospels and the apostolic writings, and indeed to the whole sweep of scripture? I would argue that two preliminary things need to be established in answering this question; firstly, the attempt to divide the teaching of the gospels and the epistles is to create a false dichotomy - Jesus said much about his redemptive work (e.g. John 3: 14-18) and the apostles don't 'underplay' the Lordship of Jesus (e.g. Ephesians 1: 18-23).
Secondly, the best way to outline the good news of Christianity is in fact to outline the whole historical narrative from God's pre-creation existence through to his establishing of the eternal perfect kingdom(via creation, fall, the promise of restoration, the incarnation of Jesus, his life, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit and the work of God's people while awaiting his return). Therefore, any attempt to summarise the gospel will inevitably not be able to say everything, but must do justice to the heart of this wonderful narrative. Such a summary is a good and useful thing to have a grasp of, as we might not always have the opportunity or clarity of thought to outline the complete narrative in a conversational setting. And as aforementioned, a clear gospel outline is essential for confessional unity amongst Christians.
Here then is my attempt to define the gospel in a way that summarises the heart of the Christian message, uniting Jesus' lordship with his redemptive work, as succinctly as possible:
The good news of Christianity is that God is real, he is good, he is loving, he is just and he wants a relationship with humankind. One day he will banish all evil from Earth and establish an eternal kingdom of joy where all people who trust in him will forever live. But the shock is that rather than trust in him, all of us have rejected God's rule over our lives through preferring to do life our way, through worshiping and treasuring things above God, and through not living as we know we ought to have done as moral beings. This rejection of God has led to all the evil and imperfection that has plagued the Earth throughout history and that plagues life today. It resulted in bringing the greatest enemy of all upon us - namely death. Having rejected God, all humans rightly face God's judgement for this rebellion. But God, out of his love, didn't want to leave humankind in this state, and sent his son Jesus to the Earth to call us to turn from our sins and live with God as our Lord. Yet Jesus came not only to call us back to God but also to make that possible, for God being a just God couldn't overlook our wrongful rejection of him without punishing it. And Jesus made that possible by dying on a cross in the place of every human, taking the wrath of God that we deserve to face. Having died, God raised Jesus from the dead, guaranteeing the achievement of the cross, the overthrow of death and the reversal of the sad decay of the Earth. But this work of Christ isn't a get out of jail free card for everyone; rather we have a choice to make - do we receive the good news of life in Christ though trusting God's promises of forgiveness and setting our hearts against wrongdoing? Or do we continue living with ourselves as lord and reject or ignore the work of Jesus? The first leads to a true knowledge of God and everlasting fulness of life, while the second leads to judgement, death and a parting from all goodness.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)