This week on my Facebook page I asked parents to give me feedback on this question: “If your children don’t want to come to church should you still bring them along?”  I went on to say, “I realise that there are many views on this and each parent(s) make their own decisions. How have you handled this one with your children? What has been the outcome?”  What followed was a very honest and respectful discussion that will form the basis of what I hope will be an informative and helpful blog.

As I expected, the comments were many and varied and reflected some strong opinions along with some gentler approaches.  Some parents answered the question with a definite “YES” – “My house. My rules. Kids don’t want to eat vegetables. Do you make them? They want to stay home from school and watch YouTube. Should you let them? No. When they turn 18 … different story.”  I tried the “under my roof” approach with Gigi (our eldest daughter) a few years ago.  Her response was to suggest that she’d get a caravan and park it in the driveway so that she wouldn’t technically be “under our roof”.  She’s an awful lot like me J.

Another parent commented, “I think the most influencing factor on my opinion is that the Holy Spirit doesn’t have a forceful nature; he doesn’t “make” us do things. Being a Christian and attending church is a heart level decision and if parents are forcing their kids to come purely based on the “my house, my rules” way, then I can see it having a negative impact in the long run. ”

Some parents reported that this has never been a necessary question, “I’m so glad I’ve never had to face this because [my son] loves coming to church”, while others described stories of rebellion and resentment: “My brother and I were made to go to church twice on a Sunday, Tuesday prayer meeting and Friday Bible study – every week while we were under their roof. Going to church was the most important thing – came before family. I wasn’t allowed to join the guides as it was on Friday. My brother has moved away from Christianity and his main reason is the way we were raised.”

Parenting children is a minefield of challenges at the best of times so hopefully what follows will be some helpful things to consider when it comes to raising your children to develop a genuine faith in Jesus:

  1. Exercise a lifestyle of worship at home

A children’s pastor at a large Melbourne church wrote, “I believe the church experience, when presented in all its various expressions within the home, will make ‘big’ church more attractive for the entire family. From my years in children’s ministry, the children who engage in the Sunday program the quickest are the ones who have already started to exercise a lifestyle of worship at home.”  This man, who I highly respect, raises what I consider to be the most important issue connected with this question, that is the responsibility that Christian parents have to “instruct [their children] and teach them the ways of the Lord as you raise them” (Ephesians 6:4).

A pastor friend of mine who has been in Christian ministry for over two decades observes, “for the most part parents delegate out the responsibility for their child’s spiritual growth to the church.”  The church should be partnering with parents to assist them with their responsibility.  This means that Christian parents must model what it means to be Christian in every part of life by having a genuine relationship with Jesus.

  1. Make it a conversation rather than a command

We’ve had a number of discussions over the years with our kids about church and we’ve always tried to make it a conversation rather than a command.  We explain to them why we want them to be part of church with us – it’s what we do as a family.

We have healthy, age-appropriate discussions on questions of faith, morality and ethics.  We’ve listened when they’ve had problems such as finding church (youth / kids’ min etc.) boring or irrelevant.  We’ve helped them make friends by befriending the parents of the kids they like.  One of the best things we’ve ever done is a Bayside family missions trip to Thailand four years ago.  Our kids made great friends with the other young people on the trip and those friendships have endured.  And we spend time in prayer for our children asking God to help them and us.

A young man at Bayside Church wrote, “I was given the option from the age of 14 and I still go to church, and very strong in my faith. If my parents would have forced me I would have felt like it wasn’t my decision to believe.” 

A mum wrote, “Usually a one on one chat sorts it and he’s happy to attend.”

  1. Choose a good, local church

I emphasise “local” here.  I appreciate that some parents love travelling a long way to go to an exciting mega-church but this can tend to be an event rather than a community.  The likelihood is that other people are travelling an hour to get there (from the opposite direction) and your kids will make friends with theirs – and you’ll live two hours away from each other.  There’s nothing like being part of a church in your local community and getting to know people who live nearby.

Once you’ve found a good church stick with it.  Resist the temptation to church hop and becoming a Christian consumer.  Get involved as a family and make it the best church it can be because you’re there.

  1. Make church a non-negotiable for the whole family

Joshua uttered the immortal words, “But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”  We have a habit of gathering with our church community as a family on Saturday evenings.  Because Christie and I are the senior leaders at Bayside Church we are usually at two or three meetings each weekend.  We don’t expect our kids to be at every service – one is enough. We do our best to work around social events by dropping them off at a party after church on Saturday evenings.  Sometimes they’ll miss church if the party starts earlier.  It all works on a case-by-case basis and also depends on their attitude and helpfulness around the home during the week.  But most weekends church is a non-negotiable for our family.  I wish it were for all Christians.

We need to see many families make a complete shift in the current individualistic mindset towards church.  Most Western Christians see church as something to attend – or not.  People “go to church” – or not – rather than seeing church as a community of believers you “belong” to and are an active part of.

A mate of mine who’s an agnostic wrote, “I think kids can learn some good life lessons in going to their families’ chosen church, and I’ve witnessed the amazing community feeling that Bayside offers.”

Another said, “Going to church is a family event, just as much as having dinner together. Both are important to ‘us’ as a family and not negotiable.” 

A single mum in our church community said, “My kids as toddlers didn’t want to go to church and especially hated kids groups. I kept bringing them despite it being extremely difficult. I stood by the word, especially Proverbs 22:6. It took a while but now I can’t get them out of church. Lol.  As teenagers and preteens, they feel that Bayside is home and know it’s a huge part of our lives. I’m so happy God gave me the strength and support to push through and keep attending during the tough times. Now we are reaping the blessings.”

  1. Don’t beat yourself up if your kids have walked away

Even a casual reading of the Bible shows that many of God’s kids rebelled against Him too – and He’s the perfect parent!  If your children have rebelled – or just walked away from their faith and the church, rest in the fact that you did your best and you did what you believed to be right at the time.  Entrust your kids into the hands of a loving heavenly parent who still has their best interest at heart.

So much more could be said, feel free to comment, share and interact on this topic and let’s help each other be even better parents.

It’s one of the oldest life truths known to the human race. Jesus taught it, but it predates him by almost two thousand years and is found in every world religion.  It’s the ultimate key to a fruitful and satisfying life.  Of course, I’m speaking of The Golden Rule (TGR); the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated.

TGR is first found about 2000 BC in ancient Egypt in The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.”  In 1440 BC The Hebrew Scriptures stated, “Don’t oppress a foreigner, for you well know how it feels to be a foreigner, since you were foreigners yourselves in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9) and “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).  Over three millennia later that statement would be a good one for Aussies to get a hold of in our treatment of refugees!

Various philosophers then picked up TGR.  In 5th century BC Greece, Socrates wrote “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.”  Plato said, “May I do to others as I would that they should do to me.”   Aristotle, Seneca and Philo also wrote about TGR.

The twelve classical world religions all contain TGR.  Judaism is the oldest religion to embrace it: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a).  Buddhism: “a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” (Samyutta Nikaya v. 353).  Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” (Mahabharata 5:1517).  Islam: “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself” (Number 13 of Imam “Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths).  Imagine the impact in the world right now if the pseudo-Islamic groups like the so-called Islamic State, the Taliban and Al Qaeda got a hold of this truth!

Confucianism, Shintoism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Baha’i, Jainism and Sikhism all state the golden rule in various ways.

What has been known, taught and practised for thousands of years in various religions and philosophies has now been embraced by modern social psychology as stated in The Law of Reciprocity.  When someone does something nice for you, you will have a deep-rooted psychological urge to do something nice in return.  One psychology website asked the question: “Have you ever noticed that you feel compelled to do something for people who have helped you along the way – even if they haven’t asked you to?  There’s something very powerful at play that causes this phenomenon.”  This site also taught about intent: “If your intent is to give so you get something back then your motive is wrong.”

Jesus put it like this, “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). In other words, living by this one rule of life is like living up to the entire Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians refer to as The Old Testament).

Inbuilt into this law of life is what I call the golden question and the golden answer.  The question is, “how do I want to be treated?”  And the answer, “that’s how I’m going to live!”  Jesus taught some practical ways of living out TGR in everyday life (note the progression):

  • Do not judge others, so that others will not judge you.

The word “judge” here means, “to pick out by separating.”  In other words, Christian people – or anyone who chooses to live by TGR – will never single out a particular people group and treat them differently to the way they would treat others.

  • Do not condemn others, and others will not condemn you.

“Condemn” means “to pass sentence upon.”  If you live by TGR you won’t pronounce a punishment on those who are different or who have a differing opinion.

  • Forgive others, and others will forgive you.

Forgiveness is the opposite of condemnation.  Instead of passing judgment you choose to pardon, to release others and to set them free.

  • Give to others, and others will give to you.

The implication here is that instead of giving judgement, condemnation and unforgiveness, TGR encourages us to give the opposite and to give it generously. “A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

While I certainly don’t always get it right, I do believe TGR is the best way to live.  It’s also a good thing to bear in mind as we interact with others in society and could be a good gauge in helping us do the right thing when we face various ethical debates and dilemmas.  Instead of wanting everything “my way” what would be the best way to act for the benefit of others?  How can I treat others as I would like to be treated?  After all, it’s how God has chosen to treat each of us in Jesus.  Jesus died for us “while we were yet sinners” and has given us his undeserved, sacrificial, no-strings-attached, self-giving love.  How should this truth impact the way we treat those who haven’t yet come to Christ?

A few weeks ago I posted a blog presenting the three main Christian views on hell.  One of the things I found interesting in the responses to the blog was the repeated theme of taking the Bible literally.  Comments were made such as:

“Jesus makes it pretty clear in Luke 16:27–30 that we all have sufficient warning about the reality of hell.”

“Is it possible that the traditional view is correct even when we don’t like or understand it fully, or do we put our personal views ahead of the literal words of the Bible?”

“Do you really believe that the Bible is the literal and authoritative word of God and that He is trustworthy outside of our understanding?”

“The end result of constantly watered down and a less literal view of scripture is a church that looks very different to the early church in Acts.”

“I implore leaders to keep the Bible literal and simplistic.”

And the all-time doozy, “The Bible clearly teaches that …”

Now I want to state upfront that I believe the entire Bible to be the inspired Word of God.  But that does not mean everything in the Bible is to be taken literally and it certainly doesn’t mean that everything in it is clearly taught (2 Peter 3:16).  If the entire Bible was clear there wouldn’t be lots of different views on lots of different topics, and there wouldn’t have been heated discussions, debates and councils over the centuries in order to work through doctrinal issues.

So, should the Bible be taken literally?  Well yes, some of it clearly should be (love the Lord your God, love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemies – they are literal statements) but other parts of the Bible do not favour a literal understanding.

When you’re reading and studying the Bible one of the first things you need to ask yourself is, “what type of literature am I reading?”  The Bible is full of various kinds of language.  There’s poetry, history, promises, commands, stories, songs, rhetoric, logic, proverbs, history, hyperbole, wisdom, irony, parables, figures of speech, apocalyptic and metaphorical language.  So, when you’re reading Scripture ask yourself, how should this be understood – literally, figuratively or in some other way?

For example, poetry affirms truth in a different way to history.  When you’re reading Psalms you’re reading Hebrew poetry that was at one time set to music and sung as songs.  Even today songs and poems use a literary device called poetic license and it defined as “The liberty taken by an artist or a writer in deviating from conventional form or fact to achieve a desired effect” (Free Dictionary).  The Psalms are full of this kind of non-literal writing.  Consider Psalm 139 in which David sings of how God “created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”  Two verses later he sings, “My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.”  It’s obvious that a literal reading is not warranted.  God doesn’t knit babies in wombs or weave them together underground.  If this is taken literally then these verses contradict each other.  Where exactly does God do His knitting or weaving?

Also in the poetry books are Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes.  Proverbs are not promises; they are wise sayings that are generally true.  Consider Proverbs 12:11 as an example: “Those who work their land will have abundant food, but those who chase fantasies have no sense.”  This proverb is contrasting a good work ethic with people who pursue fanciful hopes.  The general truth is that hard work reaps good rewards, and so the proverb is generally true, but there are plenty of people – including farmers – who have worked hard but also been hit hard by adverse circumstances beyond their control – famine, drought, financial downturns and so on.  For them, at times, the proverb is not true.

The story of Job (that Lord Tennyson called, “the greatest poem of ancient and modern times”) is Hebrew poetry that is set out as a play.  It may be a story about real peoples, but it could just as easily be a drama with fictitious characters that communicate powerful truths – our attitude towards unavoidable suffering; the question of human tragedy, why the righteous suffer and, ultimately, the true success that comes by fleeing evil and trusting God.  There are many statements in Job that are not true and shouldn’t be taken literally.  God Himself does a lot of correcting at the end of the drama.

Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon in his old age and gives an account of the part of his life when he tried to find meaning in life separate from God.  There are statements in this book of poetry that are just plain wrong and should not be quoted as truth.  Consider Ecclesiastes 7:16-17, “Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise—why destroy yourself?  Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time?”  The wise reader of the Bible will realise why Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes and understand it as a result – that all of life is absurd without a relationship with God, “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.”  The wise reader will also not isolate verses in Ecclesiastes and take them literally.

The length of a blog doesn’t allow me to fully explore this subject but consider the following obviously non-literal statements from Jesus: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away … If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out.”  The apostle Paul confessed to robbing churches (2 Corinthians 11:8), there’s a seven-headed, ten-horned beast coming out of the sea (Revelation 13:1) – this is the same beast that is cast into a lake of fire (Revelation 19:20), and Jesus rides a white horse through heaven to destroy his enemies while wearing many crowns on His head (Revelation 19:11-16).  Joshua commands the sun to stand still – even though the sun doesn’t move and, if the earth stopped rotating the planet would be destroyed (Joshua 10).

It appears to me that literalists want to take the Bible literally when it literally suits them!  Consider Jesus’ command in John 13:14-15, “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet.  I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.”   And how about Luke 14:33, “In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.”  There’s not much wiggle room there but I don’t find literalists taking either of these commands from Jesus literally.  Why not?

In conclusion, when reading the Bible ask yourself what sort of language you’re reading and prayerfully consider what truth is being conveyed.  What did the author want to communicate to the original recipients? What principles applied to them? How do those principles apply to us today?  How does what I’m reading apply to the here and now – to me personally, to the community of faith I belong to and, through us to the world at large?  How does this truth bring about “Your kingdom come”?

We need a literate view rather than a literal view of the Bible except where the literal sense makes the most sense.

Recommended resources

Counterpoint: Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Zondervan)

New Testament Chronological Devotions

https://baysidechurch.com.au/devotions-categories/new-testament-chronological/

Old Testament 101 series

https://baysidechurch.com.au/category/old-testament-101/

Blogs:

https://baysidechurch.com.au/discrepancies-in-the-bible/

https://baysidechurch.com.au/making-sense-of-the-old-testament/

https://baysidechurch.com.au/taking-the-bible-out-of-context/

https://baysidechurch.com.au/understanding-the-book-of-job/

 

I enjoy writing a weekly blog; I love tackling the tough topics and looking for ways to express my Christian faith by engaging with the issues of the day.  I also appreciate the interaction that we make available on the Bayside Church website as well as social media – at least some of the interaction.

Last week I wrote a blog asking the question, “Is Hell Eternal Torture?”

In the blog I affirm the traditional view as the one I have always believed and taught, but also presented two other views that are held by Christian people.  I gave a reading list that contains books that present teaching on hell from various perspectives for those who would like to study further.  Some of the comments were constructive while others were critical.  How dare I suggest there are different views on hell?  Hell is eternal, conscious suffering and one day I’ll find out the truth of that – ouch!  “It’s a pretty pissy article, one that I’d expect to hear more of as time goes by. I have read the Bible, do read the Bible, done my post-graduate Theological and Biblical studies. It’s nice to present the various ‘views’ but one thing’s for sure – the contemporary church is getting more piss-weak as time goes by. Sure, they do a few nice things and dress a little more hip, but overall, pretty shallow and out of touch. The real legends of Biblical exposition are dying off and new generations of neo-Pagan, post-Christian era heretics are on the increase.”

One person commented, “I would have lived a wild life if I didn’t believe in hell – fear is a great motivator and anything less than hell being hell dilutes grace I would have thought?”  My reply, “But perfect love casts out fear. What a shame that people follow Jesus as a “get out of hell free” card. I’d hate to think my kids stayed in relationship with me because they feared the consequences if they didn’t.”

What strikes me the most from some interaction to my blogs, is the lack of ability in some Christians to have a mature, respectful discussion on Bible topics where different views are held.

Now I’m not referring to the key truths of the Bible – the things that affect a person’s salvation.  If I start writing blogs denying the deity and humanity of Jesus, or salvation through Christ alone, or forgiveness and pardon through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then please stop reading what I write.  When I speak about holding differing views I’m referring to the negotiable truths of the Bible.  I would put my blog on the three views of hell in this category.  Other negotiable beliefs include:

  • Varying opinions on the timing of Jesus’ Second Coming
  • Did creation take six literal days or is Genesis 1-2 is a poetic allegory?
  • Should women be allowed to teach in church?
  • Can a Christian lose their salvation or are we eternally secure?
  • What is the correct way to interpret the book of Revelation?
  • Is a divorced Christian allowed to remarry?

The church has wrestled with these and other matters for centuries.  Are you aware that there are four views on Christian baptism; four views on church government; four views on The Lord’s Supper; five views on how the Law interacts with the gospel; three views on creation and evolution; three views of the Millennium and six views on worship?  And this is just a small sample of the negotiable subjects on which Christians differ in belief and practise.

The problem is that most Christians never get exposed to various views.  Their church teaches ONE view – the RIGHT ONE of course – and when they hear something that differs from what they’ve always believed, they hurl insults and cry “heresy.”

I love it when mature Christians can have a respectful discussion on a variety of topics.  What a shame though, when people feel that “their” viewpoint is being threatened or questioned and they retaliate by making statements like “well I just believe what the Bible says” – like I don’t? Or, “I don’t like the Bible to be watered down to make people feel comfortable, warm and fuzzy.” Or, “if you studied the Bible you’d see the truth” – like I haven’t spent almost four decades diligently studying that amazing book! The all-time smack down though is, “when you meet Jesus face-to-face He’ll sort you out.” Yeah, you’re probably right. I’m sure He’ll have a few pluses and minuses for each of us like He did for the 7 churches in Revelation. I’m so glad I can rest in His ultimate grace and love though.

Having mature discussions on negotiable truths means that I will ask questions and listen more than speak.  It means I won’t spend the whole conversation trying to convince another person that they’re wrong and that they should convert to my way of thinking.  It means that we may respectfully agree to disagree, but we won’t break Christian fellowship and unity over something that doesn’t affect our salvation.  It means that I wont feel threatened because someone believes differently to me.

For those of you who are mature believers in Jesus and enjoy learning different points of view on various Biblical subjects, I recommend the Counterpoints Collection. It’s published by Zondervan and available online. I’ve downloaded and read a number of these books on my Kindle and found them interesting and very helpful in broadening my understanding of Scripture. With volumes featuring contributions from some of today’s most respected scholars, these books represent the very best in Christian scholarship.  Happy reading!

I was talking to a couple from Bayside Church recently and they were telling me about a conversation they’d had with another Christian.  I guess they were just checking with me if what they were being told – on a number of subjects – was accurate or not.  One of the topics that came up was hell.  This couple had never heard that there are differing views amongst Christians about hell, its existence and its duration.  They’d always thought that every Christian believes in hell as separation from God that leads to unending, conscious torment.  I explained to them that there are three main views on hell.  It’s these views that I will briefly explain in this blog.  Each view is distinct because of the way they view the purpose of the fire of hell: whether the fire is torturing (traditionalist), purifying (restorationist), or consuming (conditionalist).

The Traditionalist View is the only one most Christians today have been taught.  It was what I heard when I converted to Christianity in my late teens and early 20s and I didn’t question it.  It’s what I was taught in Bible College and it was the one I’ve held to and taught over my 30 years as a pastor – but with increasing difficulty.  You see the traditional view teaches that hell is unending, conscious, agonising punishment for those who reject God’s salvation through Jesus – or for those who never accept Him even if they’ve never heard of Him.  Some Christian teachers and pastors have used the doctrine of hell to motivate believers to spread the Gospel:  “If people die without Jesus they go to a lost eternity.”  “If you were to die tonight do you know if you would go to heaven or would you be lost in hell?”  With the traditional view, hell is punitive and there’s no possibility of redemption, ever (Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 20:10, 14-15).

The Restorationist View also called Universalism (and includes the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory) sees hell as a place of divine cleansing and ultimate redemption.  Like a father disciplining his child, hell is seen as a place where God corrects the wayward sinner until they see the error of their ways, repents and asks for forgiveness.  At that time the person’s punishment ends and they are allowed into the eternal kingdom of God because of the salvation Jesus has achieved for all people (Titus 2:11; Romans 1:16).  In the end, “every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10).

The Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory states, “As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.”  Contemporary theology around purgatory talks about it being a personal encounter with God in order to ready God’s people for full union with him because of the effects of any unresolved sin that they may carry.  Thus purgatory is an experience of “cleansing” through Christ. Modern theology dispels ideas of painful fire, but rather speaks of purgatory at a moment when we are brought before the intense light of God, which “burns” away our blockages to him.  Any “pain” would only be the pain of seeing our sin before the absolute goodness of God, which is now revealed to us in full light.

The Conditionalist View (also called annihilationism) is the view of hell as a conditional or temporary situation for those who die without accepting Jesus’ salvation.  This view is once again finding increasing support amongst those who find an inconsistency between the doctrines of everlasting punishment and of a God of love, grace and forgiveness.  John Stott, one of the Evangelical church’s most influential leaders of last century, leaned towards the conditionalist view towards the end of his life.  He wrote these words concerning eternal hell, “I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain.”  To many people the traditional view of hell appears to be totally inconsistent with the character of God who asks us to forgive our enemies, be merciful and turn the other check – does God not practice what He preaches?

When speaking of the fate of unrepentant people, the Bible uses words such as death, ruin, perishing and destruction.  The symbolism of fire suggests being consumed rather than being endlessly tortured.  In this view, “eternal punishment” refers to the results of the judgment being everlasting rather than the person being endlessly punished.  The judgment on the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is used as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire (see Jude 7).  The cities were annihilated and the result of their punishment was eternal.

The traditional view can be traced back to the philosopher Plato who viewed the human soul as indestructible.  But the Bible does not teach the immortality of the human soul.  In fact, the Scriptures say, “God alone has immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16) that’s why eternal life is a gift granted because of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Romans 6:23) in which He “tasted death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9).

I have written this blog to educate people to the fact that there is more than one view on the subject of hell.  I encourage you to study the Scriptures and, if you’re interested in knowing more, read widely on the various views before making your own mind up.  Whatever you believe never use it to generate fear in others, or as an excuse to live a sloppy life.  We don’t love God because we want to escape hell.  We love Him because He first loved us.

Suggested Reading

Four Views on Hell (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) (Zondervan)

The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment (Edward William Fudge)

The Great Divorce (C.S. Lewis)

 

In last week’s blog I mentioned a book I read while on holiday recently: One of Us by journalist Asne Seierstad. In it the author brilliantly presents the story of Anders Behring Breivik, the man who killed 77 people (and wounded many more) in the bomb attack and mass shooting in Norway on 22 July 2011. Breivik was a far-right “Christian” who committed these atrocities because he was concerned that Norway was losing its Christian values due to the policies of the left. That’s why he targeted the seat of Norway’s Government as well as a camp for up and coming leftist leaders.

When I mentioned this last week someone very quickly corrected me by telling me that Breivik is not a Christian, but he called himself one and acted out of his view of Christian values. Consider some of his beliefs …

• He advocated for the deportation of all Muslims unless they converted to Christianity, were baptised and given new Christian names.

• He prayed to God. On one occasion he wrote in his diary, “I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail. He must ensure that I succeed in my mission and as such; contribute to inspire thousands of other revolutionary conservative nationalist, anti-Communists and anti-Islamists throughout the European world.”

• He encouraged the Church to be more forthright, priests to be more like in the old days and the reintroduction of teaching Christianity in schools.

• He viewed the execution of 77 people as a way of preventing the loss of “our ethnic group, our Christianity, our culture.”

• He described himself as “a militant Christian and not particularly religious.” He said, “We want a Christian cultural heritage, Christian religious instruction in schools and a Christian framework for Europe.” He claimed, “I’m a Christian, I believe in God.”

Breivik called himself a Christian, and yet any reasonable person would realise that just because someone calls himself a Christian doesn’t mean he is one. We expect a person’s Christian faith to reflect in a certain way in their life and that certainly doesn’t include the murder of 77 people.

Consider the following words, “In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that He would give His blessing to our work, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right. I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty. No man can fashion world history unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence.” It’s an excellent proclamation that no Christian would disagree with. But these words were part of a speech given by Adolf Hitler in 1937. History is littered with examples like this. Consider the Catholics and Protestants who were blowing each other up in the Northern Irish Troubles or Joseph Kony (a radical Christianist and leader of The Lord’s Resistance Army) who called for the establishment of a severe Christian fundamentalist government in Uganda and other parts of Africa.

Just because someone carries the title “Christian” doesn’t mean they are one – anymore than someone who calls himself or herself a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu but don’t live according to the tenets of their faith especially the Golden Rule.

I have a number of Muslim friends and they often tell me how embarrassed they are over the actions of Islamist terrorists. “Please don’t think we’re all like that,” they say to me. “They are not real Muslims and they don’t represent our faith.” My friends are peace-loving people who reflect many of the values of my own faith – they love their family and friends, they help those in need and they love their God.

Being a Christian is not just about wearing a badge or bearing a title. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commands” and He’d already taught His followers what those commands were – the love commandments: love the Lord your God, love one another, love your neighbour and love your enemy. The apostle Paul summarised it this way: “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” A true Christian will live a life that does “no harm to a neighbor.” Anders Breivik did not live that way!

Extremism is at the heart of pretty much every distasteful and unpleasant thing that happens on this planet and every day we see glaring examples.

The fascinating thing is that those on the right think they’re always right, while those of the Left believe the right is always wrong!  Author Jim Wallis, in his brilliant book God’s Politics, summed it up this way, “The right gets it wrong and the left doesn’t get it.”  And those on the far-right are always criticising those on the extreme-left.  They refer to them as the PC Brigade, trolls, morons and idiots; they talk about the “lamestream media” while those on the left are no better.  They join in the unhelpful name calling with accusations of homophobia, Islamophobia (pretty well every kind of phobia you can imagine in order to shut down decent discussion).  They talk about right-wing nutbags, loons, hacks and thugs.

Extremism at whatever end of the political, religious or ideological scale almost always leads to disaster, pain, hurt or death. Consider the recent Dallas sniper, Micah Johnson, who killed five police officers, as well as the one carried out last year by Dylann Roof on a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, that left nine people dead.  Both of these acts of deadly terrorism were motivated by extreme left-wing ideology.

Those on the far-right are just as dangerous.  Of course we’re constantly confronted with the atrocities of Islamic terrorist groups such as Daesh, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban and numerous smaller groups.  German police have recently carried out a series of raids, targeting people suspected of posting hate content on social media in order to tackle what police called “a substantial rise in verbal radicalism.”  Typical crimes included “glorification of Nazism and xenophobic, anti-Semitic and other right-wing extremism.”

Politically motivated hate crimes on the internet have increased significantly in the wake of the European refugee crisis, as well as attacks on refugee shelters that are often the result of radicalisation which begins in social networks.

But the extremes of the left and the right are not confined to violence and verbal attacks.  Consider Britain’s largest union, the extreme Leftwing Unite, that has adopted the policy of a universal basic income: a flat payment to all adults regardless of circumstances.  It’s basically the right to be lazy.

While I was on holiday recently, one of the many books I read was One of Us by journalist Asne Seierstad in which she brilliantly presents the story of Anders Behring Breivik, the man who killed 77 people (and wounded many more) in the bomb attack and mass shooting in Norway on 22 July 2011.  Breivik was a far-right “Christian” who committed these atrocities because he was concerned that Norway was losing its Christian values because of the policies of the left (more on this in next week’s blog).

I could go on but I’m sure you get the picture.  Extremes are dangerous and the sad evidence is that those who hold to extremes will only be entrenched further in them when confronted by facts that contradict their beliefs (this is called cognitive dissonance).

I believe Jesus calls us to extremes but not the kind that bring hurt and destruction.  Jesus calls us to extreme love, extreme forgiveness, extreme grace and extreme kindness.  It saddens me when Christian people cling to ideologies of the far-right or extreme-left because when they do, they rarely reflect the nature of God.  They cherry-pick from the Scriptures to back up their beliefs but their views are not endorsed by the main themes of the Bible (or the Qu’ran or any other Holy Book), which are summarised by the Golden Rule; the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.

If you find yourself at one of the extremes – whether you’re a Christian, Muslim, a member of another faith or no faith at all – can I encourage you to meditate on the Golden Rule found in every major religion and human culture.  Live your life treating others the way you’d like to be treated.  It starts with you and me and the world will be a much better place as a result.

 

Last week, I listened to an interesting discussion on euthanasia on a Melbourne radio station. The host interviewed a Christian minister who, of course, was anti-euthanasia. And so I decided to make this subject a discussion point on social media. Here’s what I wrote:

“Once again the Church speaks out against. While I acknowledge that this is a complex and emotive issue, I’m wondering when the church will learn to engage on ethical issues in a way that expresses God’s love and care for people. Right now in Victoria one person a week, on average, takes their life rather than face an agonising death. The Church’s “against” stand on this and other ethical issues does not engage people with where they find themselves and what they face. Christians need to express God’s compassion for people rather than make black and white statements from a distance. Have you sat with someone as they’ve died in agony? Have you walked with a person with a terminal illness? Have you comforted family and friends who are devastated from helplessly watching their loved one suffer? We need to leave our ivory towers and do life with people who God loves and for whom Jesus gave His life. That sort of Christianity attracts people. The other sort repels.”

As always I invited discussion and what followed was a generally respectful dialogue. But one person wrote, “I am suprised [sic] to hear this from u Rob, I have had many of my family and friends that I had to sit by and watch [sic] them suffer, and thankful for any comfort they could get, but i also know the God numbered our days and its not up to us to end them when we feel like it!” I responded, “It’s a discussion. Nothing to be surprised about. These things need to be talked about in a respectful and compassionate way.”

Christian people should not shy away from the tough debates and neither should we automatically be “against” everything – although that sadly seems to be the expectation from many in the church these days. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t hold strong views but we need to learn to engage with others and listen to why their opinion differs from ours. Along the way maybe we’ll learn something rather than being self-righteously opinionated.

The euthanasia debate has surfaced again recently because of a 350 page report handed down to the Victorian State Parliament. The report recommends that euthanasia only be made legal for terminally ill patients over the age of 18, enduring pain and suffering in the last weeks or months of their natural life.  A number of other safeguards would also be put in place if legislation were eventually passed. This process is likely to take about two years and there’s no guarantee that current laws will be changed.

Last year Christie and I filmed an episode of our TV program The Exchange on the euthanasia debate called The Right to Die.  Originally we were to have two guests both of whom had terminal illnesses: Peter Short and Nicholas Tonti-Filippini. Unfortunately Nicholas had to withdraw from the program at the last minute, as he was too ill. He passed away a few days later. In his place Margaret Tighe, the president of the Right to Life Australia, agreed to take part in the discussion.

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini had battled a chronic autoimmune disease from the age of 20. He lived until the age of 56. Professor Tonti-Filippini was staunch in his opposition to voluntary euthanasia. He said, “Euthanasia would be a disaster for people like me. I’m dependent on dialysis … I’m well advanced with a terminal condition. If euthanasia was allowed it would put pressure on people in my situation to take that option. So anybody who was terminally ill – anybody who was suffering – they would be under a kind of pressure because the doctors would have to tell them that this was an option, so it would undermine the whole relationship between them and their doctor.  At the moment, the doctors and nurses I see encourage me to keep going with the dialysis.  But if they happen to turn around and say that at this stage of your life you could opt for euthanasia, it would completely undermine the relationship.” (The Age)

Peter Short was an amazing man and we enjoyed good conversation both on and off set. Peter had successfully battled oesophageal cancer in his early 50s but, on 28 January 2014, his 57th birthday, he was told it had returned – terminally. Peter campaigned for euthanasia but in the end he opted for palliative care. He died on 29 December, 2014.

https://petershort.com.au

There are many “fors” and “againsts” in the euthanasia debate and I encourage you to read widely on the subject if you’re interested in knowing more. I guess a great question for all of us to ask is whether ethics are issues or people? If ethics are just issues then we are free to make black and white statements such as, “I’m against euthanasia.” But if ethics go way beyond issues and actually affect people – which they do – then we need to engage with the people who are affected, get to know them and listen to their stories. When we do this we will find that there are many shades of grey and, more importantly, our hearts will be filled with empathy, compassion and love for those who are suffering – and that sounds very much like Jesus to me.

Welcome to winter! It’s a wonderful season in many ways but one of the downsides is the increase of sickness and sadness. SAD stands for Seasonal Affective Disorder and is a type of depression that’s related to changes in seasons, especially when it’s cold and there’s less sunshine. So how do we beat flus and winter blues? Read on for some practical tips.

Recent studies show that the number one way to prevent getting the flu is by having an annual flu vaccine, which reduces the risk of flu illness by about 50-60%. Last year was the first year I didn’t get a flu jab (ironically because my doctor was sick on the day I was booked in to get one) and I ended up getting the worst flu and being off work for 2 weeks (and feeling pretty average for about 6 weeks). Needless to say this year we had a family outing to the doctor and we all got jabbed J. You can’t catch the flu from the vaccine – that’s just a myth. You’ll also need to avoid contact with people who have the flu, wash your hands regularly and avoid touching your face (some viruses can live on surfaces for hours. Regular hand washing is your best strategy to keep them from getting inside your body).

Other ways to beat flus and winter blues include healthy eating and exercise. Plant foods (especially those high in vitamin C like broccoli, kiwi and citrus fruits) contain natural disease fighting compounds that can improve your immune system, so eat lots of vegetables and fruits as well as healthy fats and lean protein, dairy, nuts, seeds and whole grains. Include ginger, garlic, olive leaf extract and green tea in your diet. Don’t “starve a fever”. Make sure you drink plenty of fresh water too. Regular, sensible exercise will stimulate the fighting T cells into doing their job – attacking foreign invaders like germs and viruses. Spending time outside during the day is very important in beating the winter blues (SAD) because of the benefits of sunlight. Taking a vitamin D supplement is important too – and other supplements in addition to a healthy diet. Also get plenty of rest and minimise stress where possible.

If you smoke it’s time to give up! Not only is it bad for your health it’s also bad for your wallet. It’s likely that a packet of 25 cigarettes will cost $40 in Australia by 2020. That’s almost $15,000 a year up in smoke (if you have a packet a day). Smoking is known to worsen the effects of flu and colds as it causes the body to overreact to a virus.

Finally, make sure you don’t change your routine too much in the winter. The temptation for those who live in a colder climate is to hibernate, but this can be ultimately detrimental. A big contributor towards our physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing is being an active part of a community of people. Resist the temptation to isolate yourself. We’re not meant to live life alone – we’ve been created for community. Join a church, make friends, get involved and volunteer. Being with people and singing together pays huge dividends. A Time Magazine article states, “Researchers are beginning to discover that singing is like an infusion of the perfect tranquilizer, the kind that both soothes your nerves and elevates your spirits.” And of all the musical genres, Gospel music is the one that is particularly effective at lifting a person’s mood.

Wherever possible do the some of the above recommendations together – eat healthily with friends, exercise with others, play board games together and pray with others. Making sure all of these ingredients are in your life will not only reduce your risk of the flus and winter blues, they will also lead you to living the happiest and healthiest life possible.

(Please be sure to always talk with your health care provider if your symptoms persist; before taking any herbal, vitamin, or mineral supplement, or engaging in any strenuous exercise.)

I must confess to a certain amount of trepidation in writing this blog as it’s on one of “those” topics – you know, the ones that tend to generate a high level of emotional response no matter what “side” you come down on. I’m referring to abortion. The last time I wrote on this subject was October last year in which I asked the question, “Are Pro-Lifers Really Pro-Life?”. You would have thought I’d committed the unpardonable sin in writing this blog because I asked what I believe to be four very fair questions in making sure that those who say they are pro-life genuinely are:

  1. Are they pro-life or pro-birth?
  2. Are they pro the life of women too?
  3. Are they pro-life in other areas of life?
  4. Are they concerned about the damage they do to the Christian faith?

But in this blog on abortion I want to highlight a piece of legislation that was introduced into the Victorian State Parliament by The Democratic Labour Party’s Dr. Rachel Carling-Jenkins in October 2015.

The Infant Viability Bill is the first formal attempt at pro-life legislation in Victoria in decades, and the first legislative attempt to remedy the abortion law reforms of 2008. Under this Bill:

  • Abortions would no longer be allowed from the 24th week of pregnancy.
  • Infant viability will be promoted and supported (all infants born alive from the 24th week of pregnancy onwards, including as the result of a medical emergency, must be cared for with the intent to save the infant’s life if at all possible)
  • Mothers who are at least 24 weeks pregnant, who present in distress to their doctor must be offered practical support, for example a referral to a pregnancy support service offering holistic care (such as counselling, social and other support as needed)
  • Mothers will not be criminalised or face any penalties.

The Infant Viability Bill 2015 is set for debate and vote in the Victorian Legislative Council today (May 25, 2016) and so by the time you read this you will most likely know the outcome. I believe this is a very fair and measured bill that seeks to find some common ground between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially as Victoria has by far the most liberal abortion laws in Australia. At the time of writing numbers appear to be close in the Upper House.

Right now there is a huge disparity in abortion laws in various Australian states. For example, in Queensland and New South Wales abortion is a crime for women and doctors. It’s only legal when a doctor believes a woman’s physical and/or mental health is in serious danger.  In NSW social, economic and medical factors may also be taken into account. In the ACT abortion is legal and must be provided by a medical doctor. The other States fall somewhere between these two extremes. I believe Australia needs to have some consistency in abortion law that protects women and also the unborn child. The safety and accountability of two doctors agreeing that a woman’s physical and/or mental health is endangered by pregnancy, or for serious foetal abnormality, or in the case of an emergency. There should be some special restrictions particularly for under 16 year olds (as is the case in WA) and should be very restricted after 24 weeks.

But with the Infant Viability Bill 2015 in mind it’s vital to get some insight into why a woman would seek a late-term abortion. Doctors Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport of the University of California released the results of some very interesting research on this in 2013.

They found that women aged 20–24 were more likely to have a later abortion than older women. They also found that later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs, which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone; they were depressed or using illicit substances; they were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence; they had trouble deciding and then had access problems; or they were young and had never carried a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks.

It’s important to understand that a total ban on late-term abortions will disproportionately affect young women as well as women who find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances. That’s why point three in the legislation is so important – that doctors must offer practical support such as referral to a pregnancy support service offering holistic care. There are excellent organisations that do wonderful work of supporting women who find themselves, for whatever reason, with an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy Counselling Australia is a good place to start as their experienced counsellors connect callers with resources and appropriate services where further assistance is required. Emily’s Voice also offers helpful information and a referral list of organisations in all Australian states. If you live in another country try a Google search to find the help you need.

All this year at Bayside Church we’re reading a Harmony of the Gospels. This method of Bible reading helps to see the chronology of events in the life of Jesus and better understand how the accounts relate to each other. Each week I highlight the relevant readings on my social media pages. When I did that last week I got this response from one of my Facebook friends:

“Thanks Rob, good reading. The title ‘Harmony of the Gospels’ caught my eye. In seminary we’re learning out about theologians who are on the quest for the historical Jesus because they think that there are discrepancies within the gospels and due to the length of time (70 to 80 years) in between when they were written and when the events took place, they feel we don’t have a full picture of who Jesus really was. What are you thoughts on the internal variances between the gospels? I’m not sure what to make of the whole idea. The title ‘Harmony of the Gospels’ caught my eye.”

It’s a good question and here’s my response:

“The reason I’ve used the word “Harmony” is because we’ve attempted to put the Gospels in chronological order of events and then included the various accounts from the four Gospels together. There are certainly discrepancies between the four Gospels and, in my opinion, some people go too far in trying to reconcile them [for example, John has Jesus dying on a completely different day to Matthew, Mark & Luke]. I think it takes a lot of pressure off to read the Gospels for what they are – eyewitness accounts from four different people, written at different times to different audiences. It’s good to study who the authors are, whom they each wrote to and why they wrote. This will help understand the differences between the Gospels.”

I have found the same challenges over the years with various Bible teachers who seem to jump through hoops to try and prove that the Bible has no discrepancies or inconsistencies. It’s as if the very presence of a discrepancy would threaten the inspiration and validity of God’s Word and thus we must ultimately prove the Bible has no flaws. Personally I don’t see any problem with discrepancies in the Bible. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, I believe it’s inspired by the Holy Spirit, and I also believe that God used people to write His Word down and make it available to humanity. It’s at this last point that discrepancies can creep in – God’s method has always been to work through flawed, fallible, inconsistent people (the Bible is full of them) so why would we think the finished result of His revelation would ever be perfect? It’s just like the Church – a group of flawed, fallible, inconsistent people gathering together as a community of believers. It really is a recipe for imperfection.

It’s important that a reader of the Bible understands that its 66 books were written by at least 39 different authors over a period of 1,500 years. They were written in three major languages – Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek – to different audiences in diverse cultures for various reasons. While there is consistency of the major truths of the Bible – particularly concerning God’s plan of salvation for all people – each book or letter should be read as complete in itself with an understanding of the culture, history, language, personality of the author, His reason for writing and so on. We should also consider that the Bible is an Eastern book that can be easily misunderstood by those who read and study it from a modern Western perspective.

It’s also vitally important that we understand the progressive and changing nature of God’s revelation through Scripture. For example, reading through the book of Leviticus from a 2016 western perspective can be quite daunting. There are instructions on how much to pay for slaves and how to treat women as well as various rules on what not to eat. Some of these commands boggle our minds and we can easily wonder at the injustice of what we read. But when you understand that these things were written 3,500 years ago to a Middle Eastern culture, that had very few if any written rules, we get a different perspective. In some instances this was the first time regulations were written down that actually gave slaves and women some sense of fair treatment. Until then they were considered a man’s goods and chattel.

Leviticus, and other Books in the Hebrew Scriptures, was quite revolutionary in its day. It upheld human rights for disabled people (19:14), refugees (19:33-34) and the elderly (19:32). Leviticus defended good morals and behaviour that would cause a community to function well.

Jesus’ teaching continued the revolutionary revelation in His time. The gospels record Jesus’ teaching that abolished the Leviticus food rules so we know that they no longer apply to us today (Mark 7:19) – thank goodness J. He reached out to people that others would have nothing to do with such as lepers, the unclean, the sexually immoral and the mentally ill. The New Testament Scriptures continue to break down walls that divide people and communities – racial, gender and economic barriers are non-existent in Christ says Paul (Galatians 3:28).

People tend to see God through the lens of their own time and culture – this is just as true for us today! For the war-like people of early Bible days God was a warrior who would help His people to destroy their enemies. When God came to earth in human form in the person of Jesus He was able to set the record straight. On one occasion Jesus is

“Sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” James and John were stuck with an old revelation of God and saw themselves like Elijah the prophet. Jesus “turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” Jesus gives us the ultimate insight into the true nature of God, “For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.”

For more on this topic watch or listen to these two messages:

Through the Looking Glass

Jesus at the Centre

I had an interesting conversation with some friends last week during which one of them shared about a Christian gathering they’d attended. I was aware of the meeting, but was unable to go so I asked how it went. My friends told about the guest speaker, a conservative evangelical American guy, whom I’d heard at a conference the week before. (When I refer to him as a conservative evangelical I’m referring to his faith not his fee. Apparently he speaks for $US23,000); to quote Kylie Minogue, “I should be so lucky.”

My friends mentioned that during his speech the presenter stated he believed “the Church has lost its voice”. I thought it was an interesting statement – as well as a huge judgement call – so I asked what he meant. Apparently it boiled down to two ethical issues on which, in the speaker’s opinion, the Church has not been vocal enough – abortion and same-sex marriage.

It’s important to understand the speaker’s cultural and religious background at this point. To a conservative, evangelical from the United States these are the two most important ethical issues. This guy had made similar comments at the conference I attended the previous week. He called them the biggest “hot button” issues of our time. It struck me how little research he had done into the culture of Australia in general and specifically into the Australian church. He brought his own cultural baggage with him and then proceeded to lecture us on our failings.

Let’s pause a moment and consider what it means to “lose your voice”. We’re coming into the colder months here in Melbourne, a time when people tend to succumb to all sorts of ills and chills that can include laryngitis – inflammation of the larynx, typically resulting in huskiness or loss of the voice. I’ve had it a few times and, for a preacher and a radio announcer, it’s never good! When you lose your voice you can’t speak, or you speak in a whisper that’s hard to hear. That’s the inference in the statement, “the Church has lost its voice”. We’ve either failed to speak or not spoken loudly enough. People haven’t heard the church speak enough on these issues (abortion and same-sex marriage) and we have thus failed in our mission.

The speaker’s premise is flawed for a few reasons. Firstly, I think the church in Australia has, by and large, made its point very clear on these two issues. I’ve read plenty of blogs, heard sermons and watched media reports on the church’s stance on these things. If you were to ask the average Aussie what the church believed on these two ethical issues I don’t doubt that they would have a very clear answer – we’re against both!

Secondly, I call into question the choice of just two ethical issues as the “hot-button” issues of our time. I don’t doubt the relevance and importance of the matters the speaker mentioned. I just question his narrow perspective. Considering the emphasis in the Bible, I believe the most important issue for Christians is addressing the causes and relief of poverty. This is mentioned over 2000 times in Scripture. In Jesus’ teachings he emphasised the “Law of Love” – love of God, love of self, love of neighbour and love of enemies. He particularly applied this to helping the disadvantaged – those in need of the basic necessities of life (food, drink, shelter, clothing and company – especially for those who are sick and in prison). The church has not lost its voice on these issues and neither should it. We need to keep speaking out for (and working towards) justice on behalf of the poor, the widows and orphans, the asylum seekers, the homeless, the abused, as well as those living with disability or mental illness. Let’s not lose our voice on these things.

Thirdly, it’s vital that in speaking out on ethical issues the Church doesn’t lose its voice on its core message. After all, God so loved the world that He didn’t send a committee – or a political lobby group – He sent His Son so that “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” The core message of the church is a message of grace, forgiveness and reconciliation with a God who loves people.

One of the most impacting books I’ve read this year is Philip Yancey’s Vanishing Grace in which he offers some sage advice for Christians and churches that desire to speak into culture. Yancey warns that the church risks “losing its central message” if it tries to Christianise any nation. He says, “When the church accepts as its main goal the reform of the broader culture, we risk obscuring the gospel of grace and becoming one more power-broker. That is how many in the secular world view us now, as a right-wing conspiracy intent on passing laws against them. In the process, they miss the good news of the gospel, that Christ died to save sinners, to free us from guilt and shame so that we can thrive in the way God intended.”

In his second letter to the Corinthians the apostle Paul made it clear that the church’s core message and ministry has to do with reconciliation: “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.” The church loses its voice when it spends an inordinate amount of time moralising – literally counting people’s sins against them – when God did not send His Son for such a purpose. Our core message has to be Jesus’ message – the Son of God who had a particularly soft spot for sinners. Remember, “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” So Church, Christians, let’s not lose our voice!