On 11 July 2015, musician Erica Campbell shared a post on Facebook inferring a conspiracy by Harper Collins regarding the New International Version of the Bible.  She claimed that 45 verses and 64,575 words had been removed from the New International Version Bible (NIV).

Harper Collins bought the NIV Bible’s original publishing house, Zondervan, in 1988.  They then bought Thomas Nelson Publishing in 2011 and combined it with Zondervan to form the Christian arm of its publishing empire.  Harper Collins publishes an enormous variety of books but their three main categories are Kids & Teens, Christian and Romance.

The Facebook post mentions that Harper Collins also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex – and that’s completely true.  It’s the world’s largest publisher and distributes books of every kind of genre, even genres that people of faith may find offensive.

The other part of this Facebook post mentions, “The NIV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name a few …”  This is not true.  For example, the word Calvary in the King James Version (KJV) is translated “the place called the Skull” in the NIV.  Calvary means “the place called the Skull” so all the NIV does here is make the reading of this verse more understandable.  One of the names of God, Jehovah, is mentioned seven times in the KJV but is translated as ‘The Lord’ by the NIV.  It’s important to remember that the name Jehovah is a Latin version of YHWH – the unpronounceable name by which God revealed Himself to Moses – “I am who I am!”  It’s believed that in the 11th century a hybrid form of YHWH was made by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai (another of God’s names).  William Tyndale popularised “Jehovah” in the English-speaking world in the 14th Century, hence it was used in the original KJV. Today most modern translations interpret this word as ‘The Lord’ – which is quite appropriate.

“Holy Ghost” is found 89 times in the KJV New Testament, while the NIV translates this as Holy Spirit.  As for the word omnipotent (meaning all-powerful) found once in the KJV in Revelation 19:6, “Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”  The NIV correctly translates this as, “Hallelujah!  For our Lord God Almighty reigns.”  Almighty is a synonym for omnipotent and is more easily understood in 21st century English.  So the suggestion that 64,575 words had been removed from the New International Version Bible is simply incorrect.

It’s vital to understand that the Bible has been translated and updated over the years as language has changed.  It was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  Any translation task is difficult – and even more so when it is from ancient texts. Sometimes there are words that have no accurate equivalent in English, so several English words may be required to reproduce the precise meaning.  The same challenge occurs with other languages.  For example, in Aleut (the language spoken by Eskimos) there is no word for “joy.”  Consider the countries where sheep are considered an unclean animal.  Describing Jesus as “The Lamb of God” would be detrimental to the teaching of the gospel.

Over the centuries the Bible was first translated into Latin (the Latin Vulgate was used by the Western church through the early and middle ages) and eventually into English and many other languages.  John Wycliffe produced the first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts in the 1380’s.  Wycliffe and his contemporaries believed “that people should be permitted to read the Bible in their own language.”

In the 1450s Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press and the first book to ever be printed was a Latin language Bible.  From that time on Bibles and other books were printed quickly and in large quantities.  Bible scholars started learning and studying Greek and soon realized the Latin version of the Bible had moved a long way from the original language.  The new English Bibles being translated and printed created an enormous hunger for the Word of God, the true Gospel and ultimately led to the Reformation.

In 1604 the Protestant clergy approached King James I to ask for a new translation of the Bible.  The King authorised this to be done and commissioned about 50 scholars for the task.  In 1611 the first King James Bible came off the printing press.

Over the centuries the KJV has been updated several times as the English language has changed.  For example, in the 1611 KJV John 3:16 read, “For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.”  Try reading the whole Bible like that!

Over the centuries Bible translators have done their best to keep up with changes in language.  When I first became a Christian I read the KJV exclusively as I was told that it was the best translation.  I now know that’s not completely true.  Back in 1611 the scholars did their best with the manuscripts that were available to them, but since that time many older manuscripts of the Scriptures have been discovered.  As they are older they are deemed to be more reliable than the later copies that were used for the KJV.  (These old manuscripts are housed in several museums and other places all over the world).  And so the newer translations such as the NIV are based on older, more reliable manuscripts.  For that reason 45 verses have been removed from the NIV that are not found in these documents. They are, however, found in the NIV footnotes or margins.

The verses in question are of minor significance and none of the key Christian doctrines are affected by these changes. For this reason I believe the NIV Bible is accurate, trustworthy and reliable.

“Speaking in tongues” is a gift of the Holy Spirit and is literally “speaking in an unknown language” – that is to say, it is unknown to the speaker but is not unknown to God.

Even though to many people “speaking in tongues” is a new phenomenon, it dates back to AD 31 when, on the Day of Pentecost, 120 disciples of Jesus were filled with the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:1-4).  The rest of the book of Acts also relates occurrences of speaking in tongues and the Epistles of Paul (especially 1 Corinthians) give instructions for the proper use of this gift.

Speaking in tongues has also been reported throughout Church history.  In 150 AD, Irenaeus, a Greek father of the early church, wrote “… we hear many of the brethren in the church … who speak in tongues through the Spirit, and who also bring to light the secret things of men for their benefit.”  Tertullian (ca. 155-220), a Latin father for the early church, also spoke favourably of this gift.

Montanism was a prophetic movement that broke out in Phrygia in Roman Asia Minor (Turkey) around 172AD.  It made tongues-speaking a central part of the worship experience.  In the middle of the fourth century, Francis Xavier described his miraculous ability to communicate with various groups as speaking in tongues.  In addition, many believe that in the Eastern Church tongues speaking continued to be practised in Greek Orthodox monasteries throughout the Middle Ages.

At the end of seventeenth century, widespread tongues speaking occurred in southern France among a group of persecuted Huguenots.  Similarly, in the 1730s an occurrence of tongues-speaking happened among a group of Catholic pietists, called the Jansenists.

Then in the 1830s until the end of the century, a revival of tongues-speaking occurred in England during the ministry of Edward Irving.  After reports that tongues-speaking had occurred in the west of Scotland in the spring of 1830, Irving himself shortly after reported such expressions in his Regent Square Church.  Until the end of the century, his followers (Irvingites) made tongues speaking central to their church life.

The example of the Huguenots and Irvingites then led to similar occurrences in Mother Anne Lee’s Shaker movement in England and America.  Not long after, in the 1850s, a tongues-speaking movement began in Russia that continued throughout the century.  Similarly, beginning around 1860 on the Southern tip of India, through the influence of Plymouth Brethren theology a revival of tongues-speaking and prophecy was reported.  In addition to the occurrences of tongues speaking in 1901 in Topeka and in Los Angeles in 1906-9, it also arose in the Welsh revival in 1904-5.

Today, “speaking in tongues” is the most talked about phenomena in Christianity.  Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement have brought speaking in tongues to the forefront over the past 100+ years, and these branches of Christianity are without doubt the fastest growing segments of the faith.  These movements are impacting the world even more than the reformation did.

Now, in a first of its kind study, scientists are shining the light on this mysterious practice, attempting to explain what actually happens physiologically to the brain of someone while speaking in tongues.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have discovered decreased activity in the frontal lobes, an area of the brain associated with being in control of one’s self.  This pioneering study, involving functional imaging of the brain while subjects were speaking in tongues, is in the November issue of Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, the official publication of the International Society for Neuroimaging in Psychiatry.

Radiology investigators observed increased or decreased brain activity by measuring regional cerebral blood flow while the subjects were speaking in tongues.  They then compared the imaging to what happened to the brain while the subjects sang gospel music.

“We noticed a number of changes that occurred functionally in the brain,” comments Principal Investigator Andrew Newberg, MD.  “Our finding of decreased activity in the frontal lobes during the practice of speaking in tongues is fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak.  Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centres during this activity, which is consistent with their description of a lack of intentional control while speaking in tongues.”

Newberg went on to explain, “These findings could be interpreted as the subject’s sense of self-being taken over by something else.  We, scientifically, assume it’s being taken over by another part of the brain, but we couldn’t see, in this imaging study, where this took place.  This study also showed a number of other changes in the brain, including those areas involved in emotions and establishing our sense of self.”

This fascinating research supports what the Bible teaches about speaking in tongues, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Corinthians 14:14).  What a wonderful God-given gift this is.  No wonder the Bible encourages us to seek this gift and to use it regularly.

 

 

I love history! It fascinates me – not just because it’s a study of past events but rather because of its insights into human nature. As German author Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel put it back in the 1800s, “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” I get his point, but one of the things that I’ve learned from history is that you can only oppress a people group for so long. Eventually a champion will arise to be a voice that says, “Enough is enough.” And so the struggle begins. History is littered with examples:

Think of the abolitionist movement in Britain educating the public and rallying against slavery. Champions like William Wilberforce MP, an evangelical Christian with a passion for social reform, and Olaudah Equiano, a freed slave who campaigned for abolition and settled in England. Plus the many slave revolts on the plantations themselves.

Jesus was the ultimate champion who spoke up for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcasts who are often referred to in the Bible as “tax collectors and sinners.” And He got into a lot of trouble for it. He spoke up for lepers, for Samaritans, for prostitutes, for the poor and for women. But it would be many centuries later when women would gradually begin to be emancipated from patriarchal oppression.

Enter Emmeline Pankhurst, founder of the Women’s Social and Political Union in the UK to push for the right to vote, run for public office and work for equal civil rights for women. Britain’s Daily Mail called them the “Suffragettes” – a derogatory term but one the women adopted and wore with pride (much like the word “Christian”). From these humble beginnings in 1903 the Suffrage (or feminist) movement spread all around the world. This was not an issue in Australia which was the first country to give women the right to vote and run for public office in 1895. Women are still not allowed to vote in Saudi Arabia or Vatican City.

The feminist movement has largely been a reaction to male chauvinism – the belittling of women and discriminating against them based on the belief that men are superior. Women then are deserving of less than equal treatment, value or advantage. History gives us many examples of this:

 Greek Philosopher, Aristotle, regarded females as “imperfect males”

 Josephus, the Jewish-Roman historian, believed “the woman is inferior to the man in every way.”

 A Jewish male in morning prayer would thank God that he was not made “a gentile, a slave or a woman”.

 The Islamic Koran states (Quran 4:34): “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.”

 According to Gandhi, “A Hindu husband regards himself as Lord and master of his wife, who must ever dance attendance upon him.”

 John Wesley, founder of Methodist movement, wrote this in a letter to his wife on July 15, 1774: “Do not any longer contend for mastery, for power, money, or praise. Be content to be a private, insignificant person, known and loved by God and me … of what importance is your character to mankind, if you were buried just now or if you had never lived, what loss would it be to the cause of God?” I bet it was a quiet night in the Wesley Household after that .

 As far as Christians go, Martin Luther would have to be the greatest chauvinist of all time: “Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for.” 
(Works 20.84). “God created Adam master and lord of living creatures, but Eve spoilt all, when she persuaded him to set himself above God’s will. ‘Tis you women, with your tricks and artifices, that lead men into error.” He goes on to say “We may well lie with what seems to be a woman of flesh and blood, and yet all the time it is only a devil in the shape of a woman.”

History shows us that an extreme is usually corrected by an extreme. There’s no doubt that this is the case with the feminist movement, but it’s an understandable reaction to male chauvinism in an attempt to bring equality between the sexes. There’s obviously still a long way to go, even in Australia, where women are often paid less than men for doing the same job, under represented in politics, business and on boards – and in church leadership.

The Bible teaches that God created men and women equal. Theologian Matthew Henry put it this way, “Eve was not taken out of Adam’s head to top him, neither out of his feet to be trampled on by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be loved by him.” This is neither chauvinism nor feminism but rather a mutual love and respect for one another that leads to the emancipation of both to be all that we were created to be.

Social media was buzzing earlier this week over Mark Driscoll and his impending appearance at this year’s Hillsong Conference.  This was on the back of some protests, a petition with 3000 signatures and media reports about a controversial blog in which Mark refers to women as “penis houses.”

There is no shortage of material that outlines in detail the sins of Mark Driscoll.  In his books and sermons he appears to just go too far in trying to be funky and relevant to a new generation in order to reach them for Jesus.  He swears, uses crude humour and he encourages the people he trains to brew their own beer at home.

In one of his books, The Radical Reformission, he has a chapter titled ‘The Sin of Light Beer’ in where he makes the case that light beer came about to please feminists, and that good Christians should oppose feminism by drinking ‘good beer’.  On another occasion he taught women who had unbelieving husbands, “You need to go home and tell your husband that you’ve met Jesus and you’ve been studying the Bible, and that you’re convicted of a terrible sin in your life. And then you need to drop his trousers, and you need to serve your husband.” 

Things started to go wrong back in 2007 when Mars Hill Church changed its bylaws that shifted leadership from 24 male elders to a much smaller group.  Mars Hill’s former Women’s ministry leader, Wendy Allsup says, “Mark gave power to a few men that he hand-picked rather than trusting the full council of elders that he felt was slowing him down.  Mark wanted to grow Mars Hill into a big tree, but in the process he chopped away the root system by dismissing those qualified leaders who were actually shepherding the church — because they raised legitimate questions.”

In 2008 the church cancelled everyone’s membership, saying one could only renew their membership if they said they had no problems with the elders.  At that point many people left the church.

Later it came to light that Mars Hill Church had paid a California-based marketing company at least $210,000 in 2011 and 2012 to ensure that Real Marriage, a book written by Mark Driscoll and his wife Grace, made the New York Times best-seller list.  In March 2014 Mark wrote the following apology to Mars Hill Church:

In August 2014, it was discovered that he wrote a blog-post patronising women in 2001 under a pseudonym.  His beliefs, written under the name William Wallace II, included the statements that have been highlighted by the media recently:

“The first thing to know about your penis is, that despite the way it may see, it is not your penis.  Ultimately, God created you and it is his penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.  While His penis is on loan you must admit that it is sort of just hanging out there very lonely as if it needed a home, sort of like a man wondering (sic) the streets looking for a house to live in.  Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.”

Driscoll apologised and took a six-week leave of absence while the leadership of Mars Hill Church investigated the allegations being made against him.  The investigation revealed “patterns of persistent sin” by Senior Pastor Mark Driscoll, who was accused of bullying and intimidating behaviour in a complaint by 21 former church elders.  They accused him of creating a climate of fear through his verbally abusive language, lack of self-control and arrogant domineering attitude.  The church’s leadership tried to put a restoration process in place but Driscoll resigned in October 2014.

The response of the Mars Hill leaders was as follows: “Our intention was to do this while providing for his eventual restoration to leadership.  The Board of Elders in agreement with the Board of Overseers are grieved, deeply grieved, that any process like that was lost to us when Mark Driscoll resigned and left the church.”

So where to from here?

Firstly, the Christian church needs to take some responsibility for allowing the culture of churches like Mars Hill to flourish.  Over my 30 years as a pastor I’ve seen the fads come and go and I’ve watched some of God’s people come and go with them!  Wendy Allsup, put it this way, “Mars Hill was projected on to us as this new and exciting thing that God was doing, but God has been building his church for centuries.”  While I celebrate the things that the Spirit of God is doing through the church all around the world, we need to exercise discernment and we need to stop putting people on pedestals.  The only man that should ever be exalted is the Lord Jesus Christ. The rest of us would do well to live humbly.

Secondly, we need to be wary of any church that is a boys club and that doesn’t recognise the valuable contribution and gifts of women – including preaching, teaching and pastoral care.  For more on this subject please refer to my blog, “Women should be silent in the church?”

Thirdly, there is obviously a world of hurt still being experienced by many people as a result of Mark Driscoll’s leadership.  I’m am not privy to what has or has not been done or said to this point but I do know there are former Mars Hill Church elders and leaders who are open and willing to be reconciled with Mark.  No doubt there will need to be some honest conversations, lots of listening, empathy, compassion and forgiveness.  Much of the New Testament was written to respond to conflict of varying kinds.  There are some wonderful principles therein to help with the reconciliation process – and it is a process!

Finally, let’s not write Mark Driscoll off as a lost cause.  Yes he has made some very public and very serious mistakes but that doesn’t mean that the Christian church should alienate him for all time.  A casual reading of the Bible reveals how much God is interested in using faulty people – Moses was a murderer, David an adulterer, Peter was a hypocrite and Timothy was, for a season, timid and ashamed of the gospel and Paul.  Some in the Christian church may want to put Mark Driscoll on the scrap heap, but God doesn’t have one.

Consider these words that Paul wrote to the Galatian Church, “Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself. Share each other’s burdens, and in this way obey the law of Christ. If you think you are too important to help someone, you are only fooling yourself. You are not that important.”

The Bible teaches, “God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.”  Jesus will continue to build His church, the unstoppable Kingdom of God will continue to grow, and all the people who’ve been hurt – including Mark Driscoll – have a place in it!

From time to time I hear Christian people being critical of some explanations of the grace of God.  The terms they use to describe these teachings of God’s grace include “extreme, hyper, and cheap.”  The term “cheap grace” was originally used by German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his book, The Cost of Discipleship.  Bonhoeffer defined “cheap grace” as “the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.”

Others use the terms extreme grace or hyper-grace “to describe a new wave of teaching that emphasises the grace of God to the exclusion of other vital teachings such as repentance and confession of sin. Hyper-grace teachers maintain that all sin, past, present, and future, has already been forgiven, so there is no need for a believer to ever confess it” (Elmer Towns).

Grace by its very nature is not cheap – it’s free!  Grace is the radical, undeserved kindness of God towards us as expressed in Jesus Christ.  Grace is extreme but certainly not cheap.  To describe the grace of God with either of these terms is theologically incorrect.  While I agree with Bonheoffer – and greatly admire his work – putting the words “cheap” and “grace” together is an oxymoron.  In saying that, I totally understand the concern of people who express opinions about a perverted view of God’s grace.

The danger with any truth is that if you push it too far it slips into error.  This includes the truth that Martin Luther reinforced through the Reformation – that faith in the grace of God alone, apart from the law, was necessary for salvation.  Even during Luther’s time there were those who taught all one had to do was believe in Jesus.  The way a person lived didn’t matter; it was unnecessary, they said, to hold to any moral law.  In response to this, Luther coined the term Antinomianism (taken from the Greek words meaning “against law”).

For more on this read my blog on The Purpose of the Law at this link: https://baysidechurch.com.au/blog/the-purpose-of-the-law/

The apostle Paul gives some excellent teaching on God’s grace in his letter to Titus, the pastor of the churches on the Island of Crete:

“For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.  It (i.e. God’s grace) teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:11-14).

The context here in Titus 2 is about living our lives “so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (verse 10).  God’s grace teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions.  In other words, the grace of God is NOT an excuse to live an impure life.  Ungodliness refers to those who believe in God while behaving in a way that seems to contradict that belief.  It’s commonly called hypocrisy and is one of the main barriers to people coming to Jesus and joining a church.  People who are guilty of ungodliness will have thoughts such as “I know this is wrong but … God will forgive me.”

Worldly passions refer to the tendency to follow the crowd even when the crowd is going the wrong way and doing the wrong thing.  This perverted view of God grace was alive and well in the Roman church in the first century: “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” (Romans 6:1) – and the Galatian church: “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love” (Galatians 5:13).

Author Paul Ellis puts it this way, “Grace is no more a license to sin than electricity is a license to electrocute yourself.”

God’s grace teaches us to “say no.”  It also teaches us about saying “Yes.”  God’s grace teaches us … to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age.  That is, our lives will be decent, honest, respectable and consistent with our belief in God.  We will exercise self-restraint and not engage in excess.  Self-control is doing what I need to do when I don’t feel like doing it.  And it is not doing what I should not do when I do feel like doing it!

“Jesus gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”  I encourage you to appreciate afresh the amazing grace of God. There is nothing you could ever do to put yourself outside of His grace but that is not an excuse to live a sloppy life!

There seems to be a lot of confusion amongst Christians as to the proper place for judging – or not judging. I was reading a Facebook thread on the weekend on Ireland’s vote for gay marriage, and especially U2’s Bono coming out in favour of it, so you can imagine all the strong opinions that were expressed.

Some people said things like “who are we to judge? Jesus told us not to judge” – quoting Matthew 7:1.  Others suggested that we are to judge and quoted 1 Corinthians 5:12, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?”

A Facebook friend today asked me this question: “If I disagree with someone on life choices … does that mean I’m being judgmental? If so – should I just roll over and agree with everything so I’m not being judgmental. When is a right time to disagree?”  It’s a great question and one I hope to answer here.

On the face of it the New Testament appears to contradict itself on the issue of judging but, when you dig a little deeper and consider context, there is no contradiction at all.

Many words have different meanings depending on the context.  For example, the word “tip” can mean, “end, rubbish dump, advice, gratuity and to spill.”  The word “up” has 30 definitions.  So it is with the word “judge.”

For example, in Matthew 7:1, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged,” Jesus uses the Greek word krino meaning “to condemn or punish.”  Whilst in Luke 12:57, He uses the same Greek word but here it means “to assess” – “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?”

Paul uses the same word krino in 1 Corinthians 5:12, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?”  Here the word is used in the context of “assessing” the behaviour of another Christian – a guy was having sex with his stepmother! Paul is strong on this for obvious reasons and tells the church to “Expel the wicked person from among you.”  This was for a season and later Paul would write to them to welcome this man back into the fellowship. So the church was to assess this man’s behaviour as wrong (not condemn him), remove him from the church for a season (presumably he wasn’t repentant at the time) and later accept him back.  Restoration should always be the goal of church discipline (Galatians 6:12).

In 1 Corinthians 6:5-6, “Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?” Paul uses a different Greek word, Diakrino meaning “to decide or discern.” Jesus uses the same word in John 7:24, “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment” (or decision); James in Acts 15:19, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” Here judgment means “assessment.”  In Romans 12:3 Paul writes, “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment” (here judgment means “opinion”).

We are to assess things according to the Word of God but we must not condemn people with the Word.  Christians need to learn to express God’s truth without being judgmental and condemning.  We can feel strongly about something but we must never be arrogant or lacking in compassion.  Read Luke 7:36-50 and you’ll see a classic example of Jesus challenging someone’s harsh, arrogant and compassionless judgment of a sinful woman.

Now let’s go back to Matthew 7:1-5 which is often quoted out of context.  Jesus instructs His people NOT to judge or condemn others and warns that if we do “in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”  That’s worth bearing in mind! He then uses an analogy from His vocation as a carpenter, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?”  Great questions!  Jesus goes on to define this sort of judgment as hypocritical and instructs us to “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”  In other words it’s okay to help someone else with his or her speck as long as we’ve dealt with our plank first!

Next time you’re tempted to be judgmental ask yourself:

  • What is my reason for wanting to correct or judge?
  • Is it for their benefit or to satisfy my pride and self-righteousness?
  • Am I more focused on condemning people than helping them?
  • Is love for them my motivating force? If people know we love them and have their best interests at heart they will be much more open to hearing our words.

Finally, remember that Jesus’ purpose in coming to earth was NOT to judge people.  He said, “I did not come to judge the world, but to save it” (John 12:47; 3:16-17; 8:15).  1 Corinthians 4:5 says, “… judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes.”  We would do well to heed that advice.  Some things just need to be left to the Day of Judgment when the judge of all the earth will do what is right.

Almost a year ago my dear old mum passed away at the age of 83.  For about 5 years she had gradually declined mentally and physically because of dementia.  The first time we noticed it was when she was cooking a lovely family dinner and couldn’t remember how to make custard.  Over the next few years things got worse and worse.  My dad was amazing in his care for mum, but eventually he couldn’t cope anymore.  I will never forget the look of sadness on her face when we left the nursing home that day. We walked outside and wept.

Mum spent about a year and a half in the home before she peacefully passed away early one morning.  The nurse had gone into mum’s room, looked at her and said, “Sheila, it’s fine if you want to go now.”  A few minutes later she took her last breath.  I had been with mum every day the week before and had said my “goodbyes.”  I have no regrets.  She was a great mum and I have many fond memories.

I conducted her funeral a few days later and then came back to Melbourne. But niggling in the back of my mind was a fear of getting dementia myself in my latter years, so I started doing some reading and research on what causes it.  I know there’s no known cure at this stage, but some of the current research strongly indicates there are several ways to reduce your risk and slow it down.  Here’s what I found out:

There are six things we need to do to keep our brain healthy, stronger and lasting longer:

The first is exercise that helps to reduce stress, improves memory, increases energy and lifts our sense of wellbeing.  Research shows that exercise can reduce the risk of developing dementia by 50%.  The recommendation is for a balance between cardio, weights and stretching / breathing exercises such as Pilates.

Secondly, it’s important to maintain a healthy diet.  The Mediterranean diet has been found to be the best mix of food to help prevent dementia. Foods to include are fish, nuts, whole grains, olive oil, and lots of fruit and vegies from across the colour spectrum to maximise protective antioxidants and vitamins.  Other foods that help include ginger, green tea, white and oolong tea, black coffee, soy products, blueberries, and other dark berries, lean protein and healthy fats, a glass of red wine and square of dark chocolate, eggs, quinoa, hummus and brown rice.  Drink lots of fresh water.

Avoid full-fat dairy products, fast food, fried foods, and packaged and processed foods and drinks as well as refined carbohydrates that are high in sugar and white flour.  Eating six small meals throughout the day is recommended.

Thirdly, keep your mind active.  Learning new things like a foreign language or a musical instrument, reading, taking up a new hobby, playing strategy games and board games (like Scrabble), memorising Scripture, doing crossword puzzles and Sudoku all help.  When you drive somewhere take an alternative route, eat with your non-dominant hand, rearrange your computer file system. Vary your habits regularly to create new brain pathways.  Luminosity gives an excellent brain workout.  Subscribe to it and you’ll receive a daily email reminder.

Number 4: Get at least eight hours of sleep per night.  Go to bed and get up at the same time every day because your brain’s clock responds to regularity.  Avoid taking naps during the day. If you have to nap then a maximum of 30 minutes early in the afternoon is the way to go.  Create a relaxing bedtime ritual and ban TV, computers and phones from the bedroom.  When stress, anxiety, or negative thoughts keep you awake, get out of bed. Try reading or relaxing in another room for twenty minutes then go back to bed.

Next, it’s important to limit the amount of stress you experience especially over long periods of time.  Do things that help you relax, breathe deeply, and engage in prayer, meditation and reflection.

Finally, keep yourself actively involved with other people.  We’re not meant to be alone we’ve been created for community.  Join a church community, attend regularly, make friends, get involved and volunteer.  Wherever possible do 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 dementia, they will also lead you to living the happiest and healthiest life possible.

That’s just one of the many questions Christie and I have been asked over the last few years since getting to know Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, two of the Bali Nine.

It’s been quite a journey – a very difficult one at times – made often harder because we’ve had to answer the same questions several times.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind answering questions if it helps someone gain a better understanding. I’m not looking for everyone to agree with me, but I have been amazed at the amount of hatred poured out even from some quarters of the Christian church – you know, the people who are to “love their neighbour as themselves” – those people!

Firstly, let me make it clear that Christie and I were not looking for something else to do.  We were actually taking a few days in Bali to rest after a particularly busy and stressful time. While we were there we met up with some old friends.  During our time together they told us of the work they were doing inside Kerobokan Prison and would we like to join them for a morning.  Little did we know that meeting Andrew Chan on that morning would lead to all that has taken place since.

So, here are some of the common questions and themes we have been asked along with what I hope will be helpful answers.

 

They’re just drug traffickers. Why bother with them?

It’s true. Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were part of the Bali Nine who attempted to bring over eight kilograms of heroin into Australia.  We “bothered” with them because we got to know them and love them.  We were amazed at their sorrow for what they’d done and for the way they were demonstrating that sorrow – not just by rehabilitating themselves, but also in working hard to help reform others.  We “bothered” with them because Jesus “bothered” with us: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).

God actually did not wait for you and me to get our act together, He didn’t wait for us to reform or rehabilitate – He demonstrated the full extent of His love for us while we were still sinners.

It’s amazing how some having received God’s forgiveness can then be so unforgiving towards others.  Jesus addressed this hypocrisy in the parable of the unmerciful servant (see Matthew 18:21-35).  I’ve had people say to me, “Those guys don’t deserve mercy!”  My response to them has been, “I couldn’t agree with you more!”  No one deserves mercy.  By its very definition it is something we DON’T deserve.  Mercy is “compassionate kindness shown toward an offender or an enemy.”

Someone wrote this comment on Facebook, “What sort of a church are you that think these druggies are heroes. They knew what the law was and they broke it. Not the first time they did it but at least it was their last. Get on with life.” 

The answer to that question is that Bayside Church is a church that is doing its best to show mercy, kindness, compassion and grace to all people – even people who make massive mistakes!

 

They knew the risks. They deserve what they got.

Yes, there are BIG signs at Bali airport warning travellers of the penalty for drug trafficking.  The Bali Nine probably did know the risks but they were young.  Did you make any mistakes when you were young?  I know I did!

Recent research into the teenage brain shows some very interesting outcomes.  Consider this quote from the online Health Encyclopedia, “It doesn’t matter how smart your teen is … good judgment isn’t something he or she can excel in, at least not yet.  The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until he or she is 25 years old or so.  In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdale. This is the emotional part.  In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing. That’s why when teens are under overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.”

It’s fairly evident to me that Andrew, Myuran, Matthew Norman and the others weren’t thinking of the consequences.

 

What about the people who would have been hurt or killed by those drugs?  Aren’t you being soft on justice?

No, we’re not being soft on justice.  I’m glad every member of the Bali Nine were caught.  I wish all drug traffickers are caught and brought to justice.  I wish those who are behind the trafficking of drugs were caught and brought to justice too – not just the drug mules.  I used to use drugs and I know all about their harmful effects.  I lost some of my closest friends to drug overdoses.  As a pastor I have seen the devastating effects of drugs, not just on the users but also on their families and friends.

In regards to Andrew and Myuran, the request was that their death sentences be commuted to life sentences so they could continue their work of rehabilitating other prisoners.  Soft justice was never considered.  A life sentence in Kerobokan Prison is not soft justice.  If one thinks it is they should visit a prisoner there.

The eight kilograms of heroin didn’t make it into Australia, but many other drugs do.  Those who use drugs need to take responsibility for their habit and seek help to become free of addiction.  Blaming a drug supplier for your habit is like blaming a barman for your drinking problem.

 

You’re a hypocrite. Why are you just advocating for those two? What about everyone else on death row?

This has got to be my all-time favourite.  Apparently we are hypocrites because we only spoke up for Andrew & Myuran and not ALL the people facing the death penalty around the world.

While I personally advocate against capital punishment in all circumstances (mainly though Amnesty International), Christie and I got to know Andrew and Myuran personally.  It was because of our friendship with them that we advocated so strongly for them.  Having said that, the two guys have asked that their deaths not be in vain and that we would all continue to advocate against the death penalty to eventually see it abolished in every nation.

 

What about helping…. (Insert other people in need here)?

Why are you helping drug traffickers? What about … the poor, the asylum seekers, the homeless, the drug addicted, the mentally ill, aborted babies you name it.

One person – who doesn’t know me very well – called me a “one-issue guy.”  If they knew Christie, me and Bayside Church they would know that statement is completely untrue.  As a church community we are very engaged in helping the poor, the marginalised, the disadvantaged, the asylum seekers, the homeless, the orphans and widows.  We can’t solve all the world’s problems but we can make a difference.  Have a read of this article for some very good comments on this question:

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/the-emotion-police-ready-to-silence-anyone-with-the-wrong-feelings/story-fnpug1jf-1227334908980

 

How do you know they are really rehabilitated?

Some have suggested they were just pretending to be reformed so as to get a lesser sentence.  Others have said, “They wouldn’t have changed if they weren’t caught.”  Of course no one knows what would have happened if Andrew and Myuran weren’t caught.  The fact is they were caught and during their 10 years in Kerobokan Prison they demonstrated by their words and actions that they were genuinely changed men.  Christie and me and hundreds of other people have witnessed this rehabilitation firsthand over many years.

A great example is the author of the hymn Amazing Grace.  John Newton was a slave trader – a trafficker of people.  He later became a Christian and a pastor.  There’s not a person on this planet that has met John Newton – he died in 1807.  How do we know that this man who was an infidel and engaged in immorality and people trafficking was genuinely reformed?  How do we know he wasn’t pretending?

 

Are you against the death penalty in all cases?

Yes I am.  I believe I have to be consistent in my belief, which has changed over the years.  I used to be very much for the death penalty but not any more.  There are many reasons for this that I will save for another blog.

Let me give you two reasons here.

Firstly, when Andrew & Myuran and the other guys were executed, a Filipino lady named Mary Jane Veloso was also going to be shot.  The Indonesian government was going to execute an innocent woman – if the guilty person had not come forward at the last minute Mary Jane would be dead now.  The death penalty always risks killing the innocent.

Secondly, the death penalty punishes the innocent family and friends of those executed. Looking into the eyes of Andrew and Myuran’s families was heartbreaking.  Seeing their grief and sadness over the loss of their loved ones was unbearable.  As I said earlier, I am not into soft justice, but I don’t believe that killing a person for their crime is just.

 

Aren’t you just doing this to promote your own ministry?

I could think of much easier ways of promoting my ministry if I ever got an inclination to do that.  One guy wrote this about us on Facebook, “The applause of man will be their only reward.”  I can honestly say that neither Christie nor I am interested in people’s applause.  This has actually been a very difficult and tiring journey with much opposition.  I do, however, appreciate our church community at Bayside Church, many other Christians (as well as lots of people who don’t share our faith) and the media who have stood strong to help Andrew and Myuran and to advocate for their lives to be spared.

 

Isn’t it time to move on?

Look into the eyes of the family and say that!

 

I sit here still in shock at the execution of eight people by the Indonesians.  I had still hoped – against hope – that the authorities would see reason and allow these men to live, in prison, to continue the good work they had been doing since being rehabilitated.  But no, the executions went ahead.

For some people, that’ll be the end of it.  Some people don’t care. Others are glad it’s over because they’re fed up hearing about it in the news, after all, “these guys were hard-core drug traffickers and knew the risks over there.”  “Let’s not forget how many lives they would have ruined if they weren’t caught.”  And that’s true.  I wish all drug traffickers were caught; and I wish they got the people higher up the chain rather than just the drug mules who are often victims themselves.

One guy said, “They would never have come to know Jesus if they were not in this position.”  Really?  So you know the future and what would happen if things were different?

Another person wrote, “I won’t be losing any sleep they were scumbags.” Well those “scumbags” were someone’s son; someone’s brother; someone’s friend.  They were our friends who’d we’d got to know a few years ago and worked alongside to help with the projects that were reforming and rehabilitating 100s – if not 1000s – of other prisoners.  We’ve had the privilege of meeting many of these reformed people over the years – people who are now out of jail, off drugs, holding down good jobs, getting married, having kids and being responsible members of society.

That’s the sad truth here.  You see Indonesia has the death penalty in place for drug traffickers.  Indonesia also has a massive drug problem (so obviously the whole death penalty thing is not working as a great deterrent to the traffickers or users).  Indonesia needs help with its drug problem.  What they had in Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were two men who were helping to reform drug users, traffickers and other prisoners.

So, if you have people helping you achieve your goal of reducing drug crime you get alongside and help them right?  You find out what’s working and develop those projects in other prisons.  You resource them because what they’re doing is helping reduce the drug problem in your country.  That would make sense wouldn’t it?  No, not if you’re the Indonesian President.  You take these men (who were helping you reduce your country’s massive drug problem) out onto a lonely island in the middle of the night and shoot them.  There.  End of problem, right?  Wrong.

Indonesia woke up yesterday morning just a little poorer.  They lost eight people who had reformed under its prison system and because of political pressure and a need to increase political popularity they killed them.

What’s even worse, they were about to kill an innocent woman as well.  Mary Jane Veloso from the Philippines had always claimed an international trafficking gang tricked her into bringing 2.6kg of heroin to Indonesia from Malaysia five years ago as she chased a nonexistent job as a domestic worker.  The Indonesian justice system found her guilty and was about to kill her.  At the last minute Cristina Sergio, suspected of recruiting Veloso, turned herself in to authorities in the Philippines.  The Indonesian president, Joko Widodo, granted a reprieve to Veloso.  They were about to kill an innocent person.  Right there is a good reason to be anti-death penalty.

And right now there are other innocent people who have been punished by the deaths of eight – their family members and close friends many of whom will live with grief and sadness for the rest of their lives.  In a way Indonesia shot them too.

I am angry at the injustice and hypocrisy demonstrated by the Indonesian authorities, but I will channel by anger into energy to continue to advocate against the death penalty, to help those in prison to reform and reform others, to help people out of poverty that often leads them into crime in the first place, and to give pastoral care to those who are affected by drugs.  I will continue to lead our church community at Bayside Church to show justice, mercy and love to a world so desperate for the genuine love of Jesus.

If you’d like to read more of this subject click on this link: https://baysidechurch.com.au/why-the-death-penalty-is-wrong/

Ever been confused by the way God is revealed sometimes in the Old Testament compared to how He is shown in the New?  If so, you wouldn’t be the first.  In fact, in the first couple of centuries there was a Christian sect that taught that there were two gods – the god of the old and the god of the new.

Let’s face it. There are some amazing things in the Hebrew Scriptures – what Christians refer to as the Old Testament – but equally there are some things that are puzzling or just plain difficult to grasp.  So how do we make sense of the Old Testament?

In the first half of my life I had 20/20 vision. But things started to change when I entered my 40s and there came a time when my arms were just not long enough anymore!  So, eventually, I succumbed to wearing glasses, and the two lenses helped me to see things so much more clearly.  The same is true when we read the Old Testament.  There are two lenses we need to have securely in place.

The first is The New Testament Lens.  We need to read the Old Testament through the lens of the New.  Theologian C.S. Cowles puts it this way: “There were good reasons why the church fathers, in settling upon the canon of sacred Scripture, separated the Hebrew Scriptures from the Christian and gave to the former the designation “old” and the latter “new.”  In so doing, they were following the precedent set within the New Testament itself. Paul drew a sharp distinction between the “old covenant” embodied in the Torah and the “new covenant” personified in Christ. The former “was fading away,” while the latter is endowed with “ever-increasing glory” (2 Cor. 3:7–18). The author of Hebrews goes even further in his assertion that “by calling this covenant ‘new,’ [God] has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” (Heb. 8:13).

Looking through Old Testament lenses Martin Luther wrote about “the dark side of God.”  But when we put on the New Testament lens we see more clearly that “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).  John goes further to state categorically that “God is love” (4:8; cf. James 1:16-17, John 1:17)

One of Jesus’ biggest challenges was teaching His followers to look at life and people through new lenses.  In Luke chapter 9 we read of one such challenge: “And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him … when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” Jesus’ disciples had their Old Testament lenses on.  Jesus’ response teaches them their need to look at people differently: “But [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.”  In other words, start looking at people differently.  James and John were ready to consign all of Samaria to destruction because of the inhospitality of a few men.

Jesus made it crystal clear that the “manner of spirit” that would exterminate people was totally alien to his heavenly Father’s character. The vengeful spirit that dehumanises, depersonalises and demonises a whole town or nation or type of people is not of God.

The second lens is The Jesus Lens.  John Wesley said, “As the full and final revelation of God, Jesus is the criterion for evaluating Scripture, the prism through which the Hebrew Scriptures must be read.” (See John 14:9; 2 Cor 4:6; Col 1:15, 2:9; Heb 1:1-3)

In the New Testament, God does not define Jesus; rather, Jesus defines God. Jesus is the lens through whom a full, balanced and undistorted view of God’s loving heart and gracious purposes may be seen. Philip Yancey says, “To see what God is like simply look at Jesus.”

No longer should Christians define God as the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (Ex. 3:6), as important as they were in salvation history, but as the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3).

In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches a radical new way to live a life of love – and not just a life that loves the lovable but a life that loves our enemies. He abolished the “eye for eye, life for life” law of the Old Testament and replaced it with the law of love – the only law that now exists for Christians (Romans 13:8-10).

Jesus practised what He preached.  Consider Judas. Jesus loved him to the end. His love was expressed through gentle warnings; by making him the guest of honour at the Last Supper; in offering him first of all the cup of forgiveness; and by greeting him in the garden of betrayal as “friend.”

Consider also how Jesus treated sinners: “neither do I condemn you” He said to the woman caught in adultery, contravening the clear injunctions of the Old Testament calling for adulterers to be put to death. “Go in peace” He said to Mary Magdalene the prostitute.

Unfortunately, church history is blighted because people lived with an Old Testament understanding of God rather than a New Testament revelation. As a result, Christians took up the sword during the crusades against Muslims, Jews and others who were considered infidels. Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other in the “holy wars” that tore Europe apart following the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church tortured, burned, drowned and flayed hundreds of thousands of supposed heretics and witches across more than five centuries of the Inquisition. Christian Europeans not only forcibly seized native lands, but also destroyed 80 percent of North and South America’s native populations by genocide, disease and drunkenness during the colonial era. It was supposedly the most Christianised nation in Europe that systematically shot, gassed and burned six million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust.

It’s this same problem of Christian people looking through Old Testament lenses that has, over the centuries, also justified slavery, the suppression of black people, subjugation of women, persecution of scientists, banning of interracial marriage and unkind treatment of minority groups. Sadly we still have “Christians” around today who are reading the Bible with Old Testament lenses. They blame hurricanes on gay people, bush fires on abortion laws and an earthquake on a two hundred year old “pact with the devil.”

It’s time to get new glasses. Make sure one lens is the New Testament and the other lens is Jesus and start looking at life – and people – in a brand new way!

There are over 100 references of the word “gospel” mentioned by several authors in the New Testament.  But it wasn’t a new word that they made up to describe what was accomplished and offered by Jesus.  It was a well-known word in classical Greek (euangelion) referring to a message of victory, or other political or personal news, that caused joy!  It was a word that was commonly used by people in the Roman Empire.

When Julius Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44BC in the Theatre of Pompey, a period of political unrest followed.  The Roman Republic struggled for a time in civil war until Julius Caesar’s nephew Octavian (later called Augustus) took the throne in 31BC.  Caesar Augustus is the earliest figure of the Roman Empire mentioned in the New Testament as he was the emperor during the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2).

Caesar Augustus was called the “son of god” who was the great “Saviour” of the whole earth through bringing an end to civil war and ushering in the Pax Romana (200 years of “peace” to Rome).  The themes of freedom, justice, peace and salvation permeated his reign. Whenever the great deeds of Augustus were proclaimed, they were presented with the Greek term euangelion.  His deeds were celebrated with poems and inscriptions, coins and images, statues, altars and structures.

An imperial quote stated, “All the cities unanimously adopt the birthday of the divine Caesar as the new beginning of the year … the birthday of the god [Augustus] has been for the whole world the beginning of good news (euangelion) concerning him [therefore let a new era begin from his birth].”

Caesar is depicted as having been born, and therefore as human, but also in some mysterious way, he is also divine.  The poet Horace put it this way: “upon you [Augustus] however, while still among us, we already bestow honours, set up altars to swear by in our name, and confess that nothing like you will arise hereafter or has ever arisen before now” (Epistles 2.1.15-17)

So to summarise: Augustus was seen as a god in human form who ushered in a new era of peace. He was called the son of god and the Saviour. His birth changed the calendar and his deeds were celebrated as good news, or gospel, that brought joy to people.  In the midst of this, Jesus was born – the one referred to as the Saviour, the Son of God who would bring peace and good news that will cause great joy for all the people (see Luke 1:35; 2:10-14).

No wonder the introduction of the Christian faith brought such a clash of cultures that resulted in Rome persecuting Christians for the best part of 300 years.  Author Edward Gibbon put it this way: “By embracing the faith of the Gospel the Christians incurred the supposed guilt of an unnatural and unpardonable offence. They dissolved the sacred ties of custom and education, violated the religious institutions of their country, and presumptuously despised whatever their fathers had believed as true, or had reverenced as sacred.”

Throughout the centuries the radical teaching of grace and love by Jesus and His followers has continued to create a clash with the culture of the day – and life today is no different.  In this age of entitlement, the “like me” generation that is looking for its “best life” clashes severely with the teaching of Jesus to “love your neighbor as yourself.”  Emphasising only the internal aspects of the gospel has raised up a generation of selfish consumer-Christians who stop at Jesus being their “own personal Saviour,” while neglecting the fact that the gospel is not just something you experience – it’s something you live!  The gospel of Jesus is not just about “me” – it’s about “us” and it’s about “others.”

When Jesus began His ministry He did so by reading from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah in a synagogue on the Sabbath Day.  He presented the gospel – a message of victory that caused joy!  Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”

Jesus taught that living the gospel message would mean that He and His people would bring:

  • Good news to the poor
  • Freedom for the prisoners
  • Sight for the blind
  • Freedom for the oppressed

He finished the reading by saying that the gospel was a proclamation of the year of the Lord’s favour.  Interestingly enough Jesus stopped reading halfway through a sentence.  The next line says, “and the day of vengeance of our God.”  Jesus announced that this was the time when God is willing to accept people.  The original word refers to an amnesty – a general pardon for offenses, often granted before any trial or conviction, as well as an act of forgiveness for, and the forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.  What wonderful news Jesus proclaimed for all people.  All of us who have been changed by the gospel are carriers of good news that should bring great joy to others.

It is no secret that Christie and I, (and many others), have been advocating for many years against the death penalty that was passed down on Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.  In the light of this, it was no surprise that last week a friend of mine sent me a link to a conservative Christian blog that agreed with the death penalty being carried out on these two men. According to the blog writer to disagree with his viewpoint was to be guilty of “kneejerk reactions, emotional outpourings … fuzzy thinking, unbiblical thinking, and downright anti-biblical thinking.”  He goes on “to state once more a few basic biblical principles which we must not lose sight of as we think about such cases.”  He then proceeded to give a predictable list of “cherry-picked” Bible verses to support his harsh view, starting with Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”

This was a command, under the Noahic Covenant, to a fledging community of eight people as they began to repopulate the earth.  Human life is precious and should not be taken by another human. This is a clear authorisation of the death penalty in cases of premeditated murder.  But just because something is permissible does not mean it is beneficial or constructive (1 Corinthians 10:23).  Consider the first murder recorded in the Bible – that of Abel by his brother Cain.  God Himself did not see it as beneficial to take Cain’s life (Genesis 4:10-16).  He punished him by banishment from the community (like prison), but also protected him from others who would wish to kill him.

Those who attempt to justify the use of the death penalty by using selected Bible texts need to deal with the plethora of verses that endorse capital punishment for reasons that we find abhorrent.  For example, stubborn and rebellious children who would not receive correction could be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18ff), the man who has sexual relations with his wife during her monthly period also has to die for such a sin, as does the person who breaks the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36).  If we still enacted such laws most of the human race would have to die!

There is no explicit command in the New Testament scriptures for the use of the death penalty, just a reference to the fact that the Roman Empire used capital punishment in certain cases, and so the Christian would do well to obey the law of the land, “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason” (see Romans 13:1-4; Acts 25:11; 1 Peter 2:13-14; John 19:10-11).  This does not mean we can’t challenge and question the law of the land.

The New Testament views capital punishment in much the same way as it does slavery – it doesn’t endorse it, it merely gives instruction because of its existence.

There are many reasons why the death penalty is wrong:

  • Capital punishment carries the risk of executing someone who is innocent, and once they are executed nothing can be done to make amends.
  • Some criminals cannot be reformed because they are mentally ill, brain damaged or mentally retarded.  Is it right to take their life because of a handicap?
  • The death penalty does not act as a deterrent – it is incorrect to think that those who commit heinous crimes rationally think through their actions before committing them.  The death penalty is actually a deterrent to rehabilitation. Why should an offender change their life if they’re going to die anyway?
  • Capital punishment is not a more cost-effective option than prison.  In fact in western countries like the USA it is cheaper to keep someone in jail for the rest of their life than to have them executed.
  • The death penalty doesn’t just punish the offender.  It’s been heartbreaking to watch the threat of the death penalty punish the Chan and Sukumaran families and their friends – innocent people!

The blog I refer to above concludes with this statement: “Those Christians who bitterly oppose capital punishment must deal with God about this, and not me. This was God’s idea, and we have to deal with what God has revealed to us in his word about such matters. Yet sadly I find so many Christians ignoring God and his word on this, and just making things up as they go along.”

There is so much pride in this assertion, “I’m right and if you disagree with me and my interpretation of the Bible you’ll have to deal with God!”  Jesus constantly came up against this picky, proud, religious attitude and dealt with it head on: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices – mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matt 23:23-24).

Here was a group of religious people who cherry-picked their brand of truth but neglected the most important themes expressed in Scripture: justice, mercy and faithfulness.  In this context justice means, “being fair and even-handed in judgment.” Mercy refers to “being compassionate and kind in action,” and faithfulness (or trust) means, “being loyal to God and His Word”.  Jesus applied these concepts in confronting the Pharisees because they had reached a tragically wrong conclusion regarding the intent of God’s laws.  The Pharisees had corrupted the intent of God’s Law by making it harsher than it was ever intended to be.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I believe in tough justice for those who break the law.  I believe that Australia needs tougher sentencing including life sentences that mean life without the possibility of parole.  Our judicial system is often far too soft on hard criminals, and the media are guilty of glorifying them as seen on the Underbelly TV series and the more recent media glorification of Carl Williams and other gangland characters.  There are times when it is right to lock someone up and throw away the key, but Jesus made it very clear that “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” was a law that belonged to another era and not to the age of grace.

Regarding Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran what is being requested of the Indonesian Government is that they would use their sovereign power to grant clemency to two reformed and rehabilitated men (and others on death row in Indonesia) and commute their death sentence to life imprisonment. Yes these men did do the wrong thing ten years ago; they trafficked drugs, they were foolish young men; they’ve “done the crime” and would like to “do the time” – they are just asking not to be executed.  Andrew and Myuran are doing an amazing job inside Kerobokan prison of helping to rehabilitate hundreds of prisoners who will one day get out of jail. Why not let them continue this work?  Shouldn’t rehabilitation be the ultimate goal of any good system of justice?