Principles for guidance

Most Christians agree that seeking God's guidance in their lives is thoroughly important and worthwhile. In the Bible, the words 'guide' and 'guidance' tend to refer either to the physical guidance of God's people from one place to another (e.g. Exo 13:21) or, the guidance of the Holy Spirit as pertaining to teaching and authority (e.g. John 16:13). In a number of the psalms, reference is made to God guiding his people (see 48:14, 67:4, 73:24) but such instances are non-specific. There are also references to God's guidance in the proverbs, however, this usually relates to walking in 'the paths of justice (2:8, ESV)' and 'delivering you from the way of evil (2:12, ESV)'. Whilst all these things are important and require guidance from God of one sort or another, this is generally not what people mean when they speak of guidance.


What most people mean by 'guidance' is God making known to them what they should do in the specifics of everyday life. This can relate to large life-changing decisions, for example: 'Where should I live?'; 'For which job should I apply?'; 'Who should I marry?'. However, it may also relate to less life-changing, yet still significant things, such as: 'Which church should I attend?'; 'To whom should I give money?'; 'How should I serve my church?'. In all these things, the Bible does not offer a definitive answer e.g. you should work in London, attend a particular church and give money to a particular charity. Given this, how do we seek God's guidance and how can we know where God is leading?


In the first instance, we should turn to the Bible. Although the question 'where should I work?' is not directly answered, the Bible lays down some principles that impact upon this decision. For example, although working in a brothel is never specifically outlawed in the Bible particular principles and commands that directly relate to such work would make this an occupation incompatible with a plain understanding of scripture (1). In a less obvious sense, the scriptural principles relating to work may affect the area of the country in which we live and the type of work we will find. For example, the Bible makes a number of comments on those who will not work (2). If we are able to work but we make excuses for not accepting particular jobs this would appear to cut across the principles laid down in scripture (3). If we are able to work and appropriate jobs appear in places which are not ideal but in which we are able to live, or that do not relate to our preferred area of training but for which we are nevertheless trained, then the Bible makes clear that we should accept such work even though it does not conform to our preconceived specifications of that which we hoped for. In this sense, the Biblical principle of working when we are able should have an effect on both where we live and what we do. So, in the first instance, we should see what scriptural principles have an impact upon the area in which we are seeking guidance.


Of course, there are still undefined decisions we may face for which there is either no directly applicable principle or, for which there are two or more equally valid routes for us to take. Having considered all relevant scriptural principles, in the second instance we can turn to circumstance. For example, in seeking work, we may have a preferred geographical area and specific specialism in mind as our ideal - there is nothing wrong with this nor with actively pursuing it. However, if no jobs in our preferred area become available or we receive no interviews for that place our circumstances suggest the Lord would have us elsewhere (especially if he has provided the opportunity for work in another place). Likewise, if the Lord wants us to have a specific job in our particular area of preference he will set the circumstances such that we will be able to take that job. Therefore, where our decision is not otherwise prohibited by scripture, we can look to our circumstances to see what the Lord would have us do. If he would have us in a particular area he will open the doors to allow it and if he would not he will remove those opportunities from us.


Through prayer we can also know God's guidance. If there is a particular situation which we are keen to actively pursue we can pray that, if it is His will, God would open the doors for that specific set of circumstances to come about. If it is not his will for us, for whatever reason, the Lord will not cause such circumstances to come about. Alternatively, we may not have a specific set of circumstances in mind but simply wish to follow wherever the Lord may lead. In this case, we can pray that He would only grant us the set of circumstances in which He would have us go. In either case, if we are truly seeking God's guidance and not our own predisposed ideals, we should be earnestly and honestly praying for God to grant us opportunities in the way he would have us go and we should pursue those things when they arise.


Finally, it is worth noting that sometimes we have a number of perfectly valid options available to us, none of which go against scripture and all of which are within an acceptable set of circumstances. If we have committed the decision to prayer and have sought God's guidance on the matter, we are free in this case to choose whichever option seems best to us. In truth, we can rest assured that by His sovereign nature we cannot act entirely outside God's will. If we have made every effort to act in accordance with God's expressed will and all options still appear viable we have liberty to act in whichever way appears best to us. In such circumstances, simply by laying an option in front of us that he knows we will freely choose, God can guide us through our own intellect and volition.


So, there are three ways that work together for guidance. Firstly, we look at the principles laid down in scripture. If what we are aiming to do goes against commands and principles in the Bible then God is clearly guiding us away from such things. Secondly, we can know by our circumstances what God would have us do. Where he is clearly guiding us away from something he will close doors and prevent those opportunities from arising; where he is guiding us towards a particular area our circumstances will be such that opportunities to do something else will be removed. Thirdly, we can pray that God will make clear to us where he would have us go and what he would have us do. Above all else, God is sovereign. Where the three ways of knowing God's guidance have been met, all options remain and each appear valid we have liberty to choose the option which seems best to us as God can still guide through our own volition. Through these things we can know God's guidance.


Notes
1. Such as Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18; Proverbs 6:32; Matthew 5:27-32; Matthew 5:19; etc
2. Proverbs 6; Proverbs 20:4; Proverbs 21:25; Proverbs 26:13-16; 2 Thessolonians 3:10-15; etc
3. Of course, there are many through illness, lack of available jobs, etc who want to work but cannot

Blair v Hitchens: What's the point?

The much publicised debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens took place a few days ago. For a review of the debate visit The Observer website. The review is, unsurprisingly given the paper, somewhat biased toward Hitchens although I can well believe that he did appear more intellectual than Blair.


What strikes me as pointless about this debate is the very thing that compelled most to attend. Were one looking for a debate between two famous names on an issue of some concern to them both then I am sure this would not have disappointed. However, the purpose of a debate is for two learned and qualified individuals to argue for and against a proposition in order to test its intellectual worth. What business do Tony Blair (a lawyer and politician) or Christopher Hitchens (a journalist) have in discussing the worth and impact of religion given their utter lack of qualification in this field? Surely such debates are for philosophers, sociologists, historians et al rather than journalists and politicians.


This leads us to a wider point. Richard Dawkins has commented openly about those who critique evolutionary theory without being qualified to do so, one of his more legitimate and reasonable arguments. Those who are not biologists should not be critiquing a theory within a subject in which they have no training. However, the New Atheists do not appear to follow their own advice. Dawkins routinely delves into philosophy despite his lack of training in the field and in his books, such as The God Delusion, his lack of philosophical study is evident. Christopher Hitchens has equally debated the existence of God and the value of religion despite his lack of training in any field which may be relevant to such debates.


So, despite the publicity, I question the value of a debate between a politcian and a journalist on a subject which neither is qualified to talk about. In reality, what do any of us stand to gain from that?

A tentative step towards a conclusion on the Sabbath

I had become a little disaffected with discussion on the Sabbath. The choice was often presented between sabbatarianism strictly tied to Sunday and a fencing off of appropriate 'Sunday activities' or the abolition of the sabbath altogether leading to a much freer Sunday. I know there are shades of these views and it is not fair to characterise it all as legalism v antinomianism (as some seek to do). It is only to say I found neither position entirely compelling. To that end, I am taking my own tentative steps towards a conclusion on the Christian sabbath. I must stress that these are cautious moves towards a view but I increasingly lean toward what is written here.


The non-sabbatarian places great store by the argument that the fourth commandment is never reiterated in the New Testament. Nevertheless, it is equally nowhere revoked. Jesus states 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27, ESV)'. In this context, Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees for placing unbearable burdens on those who sought to keep the sabbath command. However, he did not revoke the fourth commandment but rather stated that the sabbath existed for man's benefit, seeking to free it from the legalism which had been placed upon it by the Pharisees. It is worth noting that elsewhere, Jesus praises the Pharisees teaching but states that they are hypocritical in what they practice: 

The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you - but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger (Matthew 23:2-4, ESV).

Jesus says that the teaching of the Pharisees is correct, however, their practice is hypocritical and they overburden people with rules added to the law. The Pharisees certainly taught that the sabbath stood and Jesus never contradicts this assertion, he only criticises the manner in which they sought to keep the sabbath. Further to this, in Matthew 12:3-8 Jesus gives examples of things that are lawful on the sabbath, without revoking the command itself, leading to his final conclusion in Matthew 12:12 'It is lawful to do good on the sabbath (ESV)'. It would appear that, far from revoking the sabbath command, Jesus re-enforced it in its original form, freeing it from the legalistic trappings of the Pharisees. I therefore conclude that the sabbath must still stand as it is upheld and re-enforced by Jesus and is nowhere else in the New Testament revoked.


Given that the sabbath must remain, at least in some form, what elements of the sabbath continue. The original commandment in Exodus 20:8-11 sets down two central aspects. Firstly, in Exodus 20:9-10, it specifies that we are to take one day in seven as rest. Secondly, in Exodus 20:8, 10, we are to set the day aside as holy. Both Exodus 31:13-17 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15 do not add any extra criteria to the command other than the two elements already mentioned. We must now consider how these two elements are to be met today.


The traditional sabbatarian argues that we are compelled to keep the sabbath on the first day of the week. They argue the move from Saturday to Sunday is attested to by the fact that Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 both suggest that a meeting was held on the first day of the week and we should follow the example of the early church. However, it should be noted that it is nowhere commanded that Christians should meet on the first day of the week (Sunday). Furthermore, the concept of weeks is not mentioned. The command is simply to work six, rest one. Every seventh day should be a sabbath. Moreover, the apostle Paul states 'One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind (Rom 14:5, ESV)'. The word 'alike' is not in the original text and may convey a meaning not intended by the apostle. Here, Paul is not stating that the sabbath has been repealed but rather that every day is to be consecrated to the Lord. Ultimately, he suggests that all days are now acceptable for worship, all days are 'holy'. If this is the case, and there is no scriptural command for us to meet on the first day of the week, we must conclude that we are not compelled to have our sabbath on one particular day of the week as all days are now consecrated and holy. 


Whilst we are not tied to one particular day of the week, the principle of work six, rest one still remains. This raises the very real issue of that which constitutes work on the sabbath. Jesus' statement, ''The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27, ESV)', helps us deal with this issue. The Pharisees' were arguing that, by plucking heads of corn as they were walking through a cornfield, the disciples were working and thus profaned the sabbath. Bearing in mind the context, and Jesus subsequent statement, we can draw two central conclusions. Firstly, a weekly rest is beneficial to us ('The sabbath was made for man'). Secondly, legalistic rules are burdensome and detrimental ('not man for the sabbath'). These two statements should form the backbone of that which we determine as work on the sabbath. In the first instance, we should err away from legalistic statements of that which does and does not constitute work. Secondly, whatever we do should be a rest to us. Naturally, this will differ from one person to the next. What one finds restful another may not and what one does for work throughout the week another will not. Rather than defining and outlawing particular jobs, tasks and activities we are better placed applying the two principles of avoiding legalism and seeking rest to our own situation. In this we should adopt the apostle Paul's stance: 'Who are you to pass judgement on the servant of another? It is before his own master he stands or falls.(Romans 14:4, ESV)'.


The final area to explore is how we relate the sabbath to others. One pertinent question is whether we should cause others to work on our sabbath? As already mentioned, we are no longer tied to one particular day of rest, the principle remains work six, rest one. As such, we are not precluded from using services and shops on our sabbath day for two main reasons. Firstly, if we take our sabbath on a Sunday somebody else may take theirs on another day of the week. Therefore, if we enter a shop on our sabbath, we are not causing anybody else to profane their sabbath as they will likely be taking another day off in lieu which, by default, becomes their day of rest. Secondly, if we begin to insist that others working on our sabbath is wrong we hit a number of inconsistencies and find ourselves creating legalistic rules to govern others. For example, we find ourselves excusing particular behaviours and activities purely because we understand or sympathise with them. In reality, it is acceptable for people to work on our sabbath as they can take another day off in lieu as their day of rest. We can therefore conclude that it is not wrong for us to use services and allow people to work on our designated sabbath day.


The second issue regarding how we relate the sabbath to others is whether we must meet together as Christians on a particular sabbath day. The writer of Hebrews says 'let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near (Hebrews 10:24-25, ESV)'. Clearly we are supposed to continue to meet together as Christians and this should not be neglected. However, it has already been shown that all days are consecrated, holy and acceptable for the worship of God and we are not tied to one particular day on which to have our sabbath. As such, whilst we are to continue meeting together we are not tied to a particular day for such meetings. Therefore, if our church is full of people unable to meet on a Sunday we have liberty to meet another day of the week. Equally, even if we choose to meet on a Sunday we have liberty to meet more than once a week on other days. We should continue to worship with one another but we are not limited to a particular day or a particular number of times a week.


To conclude, it seems apparent that the sabbath command remains. Nevertheless, all days are now to be consecrated to the Lord and we are thus not tied to one particular day of the week but are rather called to work six, rest one. Further to this, we are to avoid legalistic statements of what does and does not constitute work and should seek to do that which is restful on our sabbath day. This is a matter of personal conscience between each individual and the Lord - that which one finds restful another may not and that which one considers work another will not. We have liberty to do that which is restful on our sabbath and we are free to use shops and services as others may take another day of rest from ourselves. We also have liberty to meet and worship together on any day of the week and are not tied to particular days or a specific number of times per week.

Using the term 'pastor' as a title

For centuries, it has been the practice of the Catholic Church to set clergy apart from lay members by conferring on them the title 'Father' to accompany their role as priest. Typically, lay members would refer to their priest as 'Father Bloggs'. Similarly, the Anglican Church gives the title 'Reverend' to those in authority such that lay members typically refer to 'Reverend Bloggs', although in some Anglican churches it is not unheard of for lay members to refer to their minister as 'Reverend Joe'. This conferring of title also appears to have crept into the non-conformist tradition too. Given the lack of formal exams which one must pass in order to go into most non-conformist ministries, there is no official title to be conferred on those who become leaders within such traditions (although the Presbyterian Church is a notable exception and many Methodists become 'Reverend' as well). Despite this, it is now commonplace for pastors within non-conformist churches to use the very role of pastor as a title e.g. 'Pastor Bloggs' or, for those who prefer informality but are evidently keen to set themselves apart, 'Pastor Joe'.

I should make clear at this point that I have no theological objection to churches having a pastor as part of a team of elders and that this is no more right or wrong than having a team elders without appointing someone to the role of pastor. Moreover, the views put forward on the use of 'pastor' as a title equally apply to the use of 'elder' in the same way (although churches trying to encourage members to refer to the leadership as 'Elder X' and 'Elder Y' do not seem to be widespread). I am not for one minute suggesting that we should not have these offices or that we should use some other term to refer to those who occupy them. However, the question remains as to whether such roles should be used as titles.

There is an important distinction to be made between a job and a title. 'Pastor' and 'elder' are simply jobs that exist within the church just as 'teacher' and 'head of department' are jobs that exist in schools. We would think it utterly bizarre for someone to refer to themselves as 'Teacher Bloggs' or 'Data Analyst Joe' as though these things represent some sort of title and yet we routinely find pastors referring to themselves in such a manner. Ultimately, this represents somebody conferring on themselves a title which they believe carries authority and status but which, in reality, is nothing other than a job akin to any other. If nothing else, it is cringeworthy - the ecclesiastical equivalent of a child in the playground insisting his self-appointed title of 'gang leader' makes him more credible to those both inside and outside his group of friends.

If this were just something to wince at with embarrassment it would not be such an issue. However, the problem is more serious in reality. It is symptomatic of a pride which wants recognition and status. In contrast to both the Anglican and Catholic churches, the non-conformist tradition placed great emphasis on the enabling of the Holy Spirit to help all who read the Bible understand its meaning. It is partially on this basis that formal exams were not always necessary to enter non-conformist ministries. Moreover, such a view often meant that those who were lay members of the church, who had a recognised ability to teach, could take on the role of pastor in a way that meant they were not elevated above the congregation. Someone who was formerly a member was seen as simply taking on a new role/job in the church without being placed on a pedestal. However, insistence on the use of 'pastor' as a title undoes this. Automatically it sets one apart from the congregation at large and seeks to use the term as indicative of status and importance  - things totally at odds with the biblical model of church leadership.

The inference that the term 'pastor' carries with it status and importance leads to another problem. As soon as we begin ascribing greater value to the role of pastor than to other roles in the church we begin to foster resentment amongst the membership. More than this, it encourages younger members to shun particular roles because they are seen as of little value whilst doggedly pursuing teaching roles, regardless of whether they are gifted or not, because they believe this will bring them a degree of credibility within the church. If we look at the words of Jesus this is entirely backward. He says: 'If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all (Mark 9:35, ESV)'. When we take away the idea of pastor being a title and recognise it simply as a job like any other in the church we can avoid such thinking (or at least do something to minimise it). All roles within the church are valuable but if we give people titles rather than roles we strongly suggest otherwise.

Further to this, the Bible is clear on the roles laid out for men and women within the home and within the church. This division of roles does not ascribe higher value to the role played by one gender - both are equally vital and valuable (1) - but the Bible is unequivocal about the role of women teaching in the church (2). If teaching, as should be the case, were not tied up with status there is no reason why this ought to be an issue. However, when we use the term 'pastor' as a title and we only give credibility to those who teach from the pulpit it is natural that those who are prohibited from this role because of their gender, not through lack of ability, would feel frustrated and annoyed. Nevertheless, it should be clear that all roles within the church are valuable and the role of pastor is not intrinsically of more worth than any other - it is simply a role. Indeed, I am yet to come across anyone who has kicked up a fuss because they were prohibited from cleaning the toilets because it was not their role within an organisation. However, if huge levels of respect and credibility were heaped upon those who cleaned the toilets, and a title was bestowed upon those who did it to highlight who fulfilled that most respectable of roles, you can fairly guarantee that those not allowed to do it would be up in arms. The issue is then not about being prohibited from a particular role but being held back from those roles that bring the greatest respect. If we view the role of pastor in its proper place this should never become a problem. Using the role as a title, however, can only make this issue worse and resentment grow.

There are some very good reasons to have a pastor. It can be of great benefit to the church to have someone fulfilling this role. Nevertheless, we should view it in its proper place. It is not a role which should see a man elevated above the congregation nor should it be viewed of more intrinsic value than other vital roles in the church. When we begin to set the pastor on a pedestal we downgrade other roles in the church, we can discourage members who work hard in other roles by suggesting the part they play is less valuable and we can encourage people to shun 'lesser' jobs and to pursue the role of pastor less out of a calling and ability and more out of a desire to appear credible and of greatest value in the church. By all means lets employ pastors but lets not make the mistake of conferring it on people as a title. Subtle though the difference may be lets recognise the term 'pastor' as a job and less like a title to be coveted or, worse still, trumpeted.

Notes
1. I happen to take a complementarian view of the roles of men and women. For reasons of space this is perhaps another post for another day.

2. See 1 Tim. 2:12

How many times should we meet on a Sunday?

The format of two services on a Sunday no longer seems to be standard. In general, there appears to exist three broad approaches to Sunday meetings: One meeting only (usually Sunday morning); Two meetings - one morning, one evening; or, multiple meetings spread throughout the day. All these approaches have merit yet each has its drawbacks. Whilst this issue is unlikely to ever become a hotbed of theological controversy it seems worthwhile exploring questions relating to how many times we ought to meet on Sunday and whether the number really matters.


It is hard to make a biblical case for a specific number of meetings. Some use Psalm 92:1-2, John 20:1, 19 and Acts 28:23 to infer that meeting twice on Sunday is part of a scriptural pattern. However, these verses can readily, faithfully and more naturally be interpreted without reference to church meetings. The most we can infer from such verses regarding corporate worship is that it is acceptable to worship corporately both in the morning and in the evening - something on which there is very little, if any, disagreement. Similarly, there is no scriptural command for us to meet only once on a Sunday and there is certainly no proscription of more than one service. As such, we cannot use scripture as a means of insisting upon a certain number of meetings and must conclude that we are under no scriptural obligation to meet together a set number of times. Ultimately, we cannot claim that one particular format is 'acceptable' while all others are 'unbiblical'.


There are two main arguments in favour of holding only one Sunday service. The first states that many, for whatever reason, choose not to attend the Sunday evening service and to therefore go through the rigmarole of preparing sermons which nobody will hear seems like a waste of time. Whilst we may have some sympathy with this predicament, the argument appears to strike at an entirely different issue. Rather than making an effective case for one service it acts as an entirely negative reason for not bothering with a second or, at best, a positive argument for tackling apathy within the membership. In reality, this concern relates to teaching, namely why one service is perhaps not the preferable pattern (which indeed must be the view of the church if they intend to run two services and fail to do so only because of the lack of an evening congregation). This argument therefore does not support holding only one Sunday service but rather makes a case for tackling apathy within the membership. Rather than dealing with this issue, however, this reasoning is employed to simply forgo an evening service.


The second argument in favour of one Sunday service is far less compelling and revolves around the question 'why should I have to go to two services on a Sunday?'. The operative words in the question are 'have to'. In reality, nobody has to go to any service (1). However, Christians should want to meet with God's people and, more than this, should want to spend time worshipping God. If we have chosen to run only one service on a 'why should I have to go to two services?' basis we need to seriously consider our teaching on this matter. Those who view church services in this way say, as much to God as the rest of the membership, 'wasn't the hour I gave you this morning enough?'. This is no basis upon which to have a relationship with God or with our fellow believers. To run only one service on these grounds is to lend credence to this faulty thinking when, in reality, our teaching should be warning strongly against it.


At the other end of the spectrum are those who choose to have many meetings throughout the day. Such an approach is not guilty of failing to give due time to the worship of God and usually works best when such meetings are a direct result of each individual believer's love of coming together to meet with other of God's people. Nevertheless, if there is any danger in this approach it is in overlooking the principle of rest inherent in the fourth commandment. Of course, meeting to worship God with the people of God is vitally important, however, we can be so overtaken with meetings that we are afforded no opportunity to rest. Jesus states 'the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27, ESV)'. When we insist on attendance at endless meetings on a Sunday we remove the principle of rest from the fourth commandment and we begin to turn Jesus' statement on its head. Whilst we should love worshipping God and meeting with his people this should not completely subsume the command to rest. Many meetings on a Sunday is a perfectly valid and worthwhile use of time, however, we must guard against meetings eclipsing all else and giving no room for rest.


Although there is no scriptural mandate for a particular number of meetings on a Sunday, two meetings seems to strike a healthy balance between giving God due prominence in the day, meeting with his people and fulfilling the command to rest. John Benton, in an article for Evangelicals Now and reproduced by Day One ('Why Two Sunday Services?', http://www.lordsday.co.uk/why_two_sunday_services.htm), offers seven reasons for holding two Sunday services. I think a number of his reasons are faulty (2), however, I find three of his arguments particularly compelling, namely points 1, 6 and 7. Irrespective of where we disagree, I believe his points 1, 6 and 7 make a forcible argument on their own for maintaining two Sunday services. By holding two services we help those who work necessarily during one or other meeting to still be able to meet with God's people and we increase our opportunity to invite those from outside into the church. More than this, by holding two services we increase our opportunities to encourage one another without making this an overbearing burden of endless meetings affording us no opportunity to rest. In these ways we strike a balance between worshipping God, encouraging one another and truly having a day of rest.


Therefore, we have no scriptural obligation to a set number of Sunday services. The bible is not proscriptive in this matter and it is not for us to look at the practices of different churches and sneer that they have either too many or too few services. In reality, all considerations relating to how many Sunday services we should have revolve around practical matters and the balance between rest and spiritual benefit. On this basis, and this basis alone, I would argue that two Sunday services strikes this balance most aptly.


Notes
1. Specifically referring to one's salvation and leaving aside any argument from Heb 10:25
2. Points 2-5 (inclusive) do not stand up to scrutiny. Points 2 & 3, as outlined earlier, are not the biblical mandates Benton seeks to suggest they represent. Points 4 & 5 are somewhat irrelevant as to whether it is right for Christians to hold two services or not (point 4 in no way constitutes a point of authority and point 5 is debatable as to whether two services in any way rebukes secularism - I would argue it very much does not).

Creation, evolution and the existence of God

 It has long been argued that the theory of evolution represents a stumbling block for the truth claims of the Bible. However, the supposed dichotomy between creation and evolution is an entirely false one. In the following video, William Lane Craig explains why:





It is often argued that those who believe in special creation seek to manipulate science to fit their predisposed religious views. However, as Dr. Craig highlights, the Christian is in a unique position to weigh up what evidence there is and draw conclusions from it knowing that God is not done away with in either explanation. In contrast, the Atheist cannot accept any conclusion, such as special creation, that fundamentally requires the existence of God and is thus wedded to evolutionary theory regardless of where the evidence may, or may not, point. As Alvin Plantinga comments, for the Atheist evolution 'is the only game in town'. When this false dichotomy inevitably rears its head, we should ask to what beliefs are those who put forward the evidence committed and are they free to follow the evidence where it may lead?

The importance of evangelism

It is easy to overlook the need to engage in evangelism. Our thoughts can often be consumed with the idea we are being intrusive when we challenge the beliefs of others with the words of the Bible. Two interesting perspectives on this issue come from two committed atheists. Both, whilst not believing in God themselves, recognise the point of evangelism and appear to have far greater respect for those who do it than those who bow to the pressure of that which is deemed culturally acceptable.

The first comes from The Times columnist Matthew Parris. He states:

The New Testament offers a picture of God, who does not sound at all vague. He has sent His Son to earth. He has distant plans for each of us personally and can communicate directly with us. We are capable of forming a direct relationship, individually with Him, and are commanded to try. We are told that this can be done only through His Son. And we are offered the prospect of eternal life -- an afterlife in happy, blissful or glorious circumstances if we live this life in a certain manner.

Friends, if I believed that, or even a tenth of that, how could I care which version of the prayer book is used? I would drop my job, sell my house, throw away all my possession, leave my acquaintances and set out into the world burning with desire to know more and, when I had found more, to act upon it and tell others.

Far from being puzzled that the Mormons and Adventists should knock on the door, I am unable to understand how anyone who believes that which is written in the Bible could choose to spend their waking hours in any other endeavor.

The second comes from Penn Jillette (see video below).







Both men recognise the purpose and driving force behind evangelism. What is interesting is that, although they do not believe in God or any form of life everlasting, both agree that it is more loving to share a sincere faith in an attempt to save a soul from death than it is to uphold cultural customs and social etiquette. Far from respecting those who believe their faith should be kept private, Penn Jillette goes as far as to see it as an act of utter hatred akin to leaving someone to be hit by an oncoming truck. 


Rico Tice, founder of Christianity Explored, puts the issue most starkly:

What [Some people] tend to say to themselves is "my faith is a personal and private thing, it helps me in my life but I wouldn't dream of inflicting it upon other people"... On judgment day, those people you haven't told, will they look across at you and say "why didn't you tell me?" and you'll say "well it was culturally inappropriate." I'm afriad that there is a need to tell people the gospel and there are times in this culture where it's becoming less and less acceptable but that doesn't mean we don't pass this message on. They must have their sin paid for at the cross or it will be paid for in Hell.

If we claim to love anybody then we should be doing all we can to tell them the saving news of the gospel. In the words of Penn Jillette 'how much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?'

Christians and the armed forces

The issue of Christians joining the armed forces is an interesting one. Denominations such as the Brethren, Quakers and Mennonites historically advocated pacifism; actively encouraging members away from armed service. However, those Christians that actively espouse pacifism seem to be in the minority. Whilst there are pacifistic elements across the Christian churches most denominations have never officially advocated pacifism usually adopting a deliberately ambiguous position making it a matter for personal conscience. Unless one has a strong ideological opposition to all war or attends one of the historic 'peace churches', it seems common for this issue to be overlooked. As such, this post will seek to deal with the question of whether it is legitimate for Christians to join the armed forces.


We must firstly recognise that God himself is not a pacifist. Indeed, throughout the Old Testament there are numerous examples of the Lord telling his people to go to war. Whilst the reasons for this are many and varied we cannot escape the simple fact that God did indeed instruct his people to engage in military actions. This means, first and foremost, that God does not avoid war at all costs. Whilst there may be caveats and requirements placed upon any decision to engage the armed forces, the point nevertheless stands. God does, occasionally, sanction military action and service.


Some seek to argue that the sixth commandment prohibits serving in the armed forces. Certain versions of the Bible translate Exodus 20:13 as 'You shall not kill' whereas others translate this commandment as 'You shall not murder.' Those who seek to use this passage to argue that military service is sinful tend towards the former translation. However, this reading causes a number of difficulties. Firstly, the commandment does not stipulate who, or what, should not be killed and this understanding of the passage must lead to the view that it is wrong to kill anything including plants and animals. This then contradicts the laws requiring animal sacrifices. Secondly, this reading suggests that God, in instructing his people to mobilise militarily, led his people into sin. This is clearly contrary to the teaching of James 1:12-18. Thirdly, it leads to the view that God contradicted himself by instituting a death penalty for certain crimes under the law. As such, the translation 'You shall not kill' is fraught with difficulties. The translation 'you shall not murder' is more satisfactory as it makes clear that it is the unlawful killing of another person that is forbidden. Consequently, the sixth commandment does not make war or military service incompatible with obedience to God.


Some argue military service is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught that we should not repay evil with evil, to love our enemies and to give freely to those who hate us. It is argued that all violence is evil and shows a lack of love for those it is brought against. Therefore, it is argued, Jesus' teachings clearly direct us away from the armed forces as the military, by definition, engage in such evil activities. The problem with this view is that it is based on a particular interpretation of war, namely that it is always evil, and applies this predisposed view to Jesus' teachings. If war is always evil then, according to these teachings, joining the armed forces is clearly unacceptable. However, is war always evil? We know that God instructed his people to go to war and if such actions are always evil God led his people into sin. Moreover, Revelation speaks of those in Heaven engaging in a war against Satan. If warfare is always evil those warring against Satan are sinning. As such, we must conclude that war is not always evil. Given this, military service does not necessarily run contrary to the teachings of Jesus. If war is not intrinsically evil then to engage an enemy in war does not necessarily constitute repaying evil with evil. Similarly, if war is not evil it is not necessarily unloving to defend oneself against one's enemies.


It is also possible to cite New Testament examples of Christians serving in the armed forces. We read of the centurion in Matt 8:5-13 of whom Jesus said 'with no one in Israel have I found such faith (Matt 8:10, ESV).' Whilst this passage does not by necessity show the centurion to have saving faith, most commentators appear to agree that Jesus' words are indicative of this. We do not read of this centurion being told to leave his post nor does Jesus suggest his occupation is in some way sinful. We must therefore conclude that this is an example of a saved man who continued to serve in the armed forces. We also read in Acts 10 of the centurion called Cornelius 'who feared God with all his household (Acts 10:2, ESV).' Again, we are not told that Cornelius left his position therefore he too represents a Christian involved in military service. There are no examples of servicemen in the New Testament being told to leave their positions on becoming Christians therefore we can conclude that such roles are not prohibited.


With all that in mind, there is no biblical warrant to argue that Christian involvement in the armed forces is sinful or wrong. However, there are some legitimate extra-biblical arguments that should cause us to think carefully about such service. For example, whilst war is clearly not always evil we cannot be certain that our service will always be part of good and just causes. We have a secular government who decide these matters on their own wisdom and understanding. As Christians, we cannot be certain that we will not be asked to fight for causes we believe to be wrong and sinful. We may be asked to serve in a conflict that we perceive to be unjust, self-serving and immoral. Can we, in good conscience, join the armed forces knowing that we may be put in this position? There is no correct answer but this is something we must seriously weigh up in our own minds.


It is also worth considering how strongly we believe our witness can stand when constantly surrounded by unbelievers. Such immersion in this environment is different to any other job. In other occupations, one can come home every day and meet with other believers in church at least once a week. However, in the armed forces one is surrounded by non-Christians 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with no guarantee that there will be other believers to meet with. This is not to suggest that it is somehow sinful or wrong to join the armed forces but is something that any Christian looking at enrolling should seriously consider.


In summary, we cannot conclude biblically that it is wrong or sinful for Christians to join the armed forces. Indeed, we have some examples in scripture of believers serving in the armed forces and taking part in military action. We have no examples in scripture of Christians being told to leave their post once they have become believers or any direct statements that such service is sinful. Enrolling in the armed forces is therefore legitimate for the Christian. However, one should seriously consider the issue of having to serve in conflicts that are, in one's own view, unjust and unacceptable. Also, one should consider the extent to which one can maintain a sound witness in such an environment. Nevertheless, these are matters for consideration and are not issues that proscribe the Christian from armed service.

An experience of depression

A while ago I was asked to write an article on living with depression for a Christian magazine. They decided not to run the article (understandably as people on their holidays are unlikely to want to read such things) so I thought I would publish it here instead. I don't expect this to be of particular help to people but simply share it as an example of my own experience.


We often hear people talk about ‘depression’: Their job depresses them; their friend tells them a story that makes them a bit depressed; or even, boring food for dinner on a regular basis is ‘so depressing’. Perhaps even we have referred to ourselves as ‘depressed’ when really what we mean is that we feel a bit sad. In real terms, however, depression (by which I mean real, clinical depression) is something so invidious and all-pervading that to be ‘a bit sad’ would come as relief to those who suffer it.


I had recently gotten married, moved to a new area of the country and started a new job as a teacher in a secondary school. My wife and I quickly settled and became involved in a local church. Before long, I found myself regularly working 7:00am – midnight without breaks. It became apparent there was a problem when I began waking up at 4:00am every morning (with no prospect of returning to sleep), my usually healthy appetite decreased considerably and I began to act with increasing anxiousness towards events that would have otherwise passed me by unnoticed. At first, we simply assumed this was the onset of stress and, as time went by and coping mechanisms kicked in, these symptoms would pass. Far from passing, however, I soon stopped sleeping altogether, my appetite failed completely and anxiousness gave way to panic attack.


It is a strange feeling when you are forced to see a doctor but you don’t understand why you are there. I knew my symptoms were real but I thought them far too insignificant for the doctor, expecting him to send me away with a flea in my ear. Instead, in December 2008, I was diagnosed with ‘clinical depression’. I continued in my work for some time after this diagnosis but as I tried to ‘keep calm and carry on’ my symptoms worsened further. I found myself in floods of tears over nothing, would shake uncontrollably with anxiety and saw insurmountable problems everywhere I turned. I felt worthless, useless and ashamed finding no point in anything. I became desperately suicidal to the point of making two attempts on my own life.


I couldn’t concentrate on any conversation, I couldn’t read, I couldn’t follow television programmes, I couldn’t sit still but I still couldn’t achieve anything either. Many well-meaning folk tried to help but, in reality, only made problems worse. I would often have panic attacks at the thought of seeing anybody struggling to see my parents and, on occasions, even my wife. Many told me of their struggles with depression in an attempt to share in my suffering but, almost to a tee, their experiences were far removed from mine and they simply did not seem to understand the real problem. Worse than this, however, all the medical professionals seemed to make the problem worse too. When the drugs I was prescribed didn’t work the doctors couldn’t understand why and when ‘talking therapies’ were ineffective it seemed I was blamed for their failure. I increasingly felt that nothing could help me.


Eventually, some drugs were found that did produce some results. Whilst they by no means solved the problem they did indeed lift my mood a little and provided at least a glimmer of hope that things wouldn’t remain forever as they were. I also found a counsellor who helped in an altogether more beneficial way than others. Moreover, my wife and I moved to a different area of the country where one of the Elders in the church we attended happened to be a psychiatric consultant. He agreed to see me privately, in his own time, and slowly things began to improve for me. I still suffer some of the effects of depression and remain on medication. Nevertheless, I have continued to improve and what was a faint glimmer of hope gradually became a realistic prospect such that I am now able to function on a relatively normal level.


If anyone is familiar with depression they will be aware of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). The principle behind CBT is to track negative thought patterns and to counter-balance them, not with platitudes that have no meaning in reality, but with statements of truth which we can test our often factually incorrect thoughts against. If we believe the Bible to be true, where better to seek the statements of fact necessary to offset our erroneous thoughts? It was a help to me when I was shown factual statements from the Bible that showed my thoughts about myself to be untrue. This provided me with a solid basis of truth against which I could weigh up my incorrect thoughts. I would be lying if I said this made me feel better but it certainly made me think better and stopped me from acting on my false thoughts.


I am not trying to offer trite truisms to what is a serious and most difficult to understand problem. Job never discovered the reason for his suffering and many who experience depression may not find reasons why they suffer either. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul writes ‘all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28).’ Whilst we may never fully understand why the Lord allows us to suffer we can know that, if we love Him, it will work ultimately for our good. Whilst such truths may feel so distant we can know that they nevertheless remain true.


I understand that many who read this will have had entirely different experiences and I hope that this will not be read as the definitive depressive experience. Also, those who are not Christians are bound to feel differently about depression. I certainly do not want to suggest that the answer to this fundamentally medical problem can simply be found by 'turning to Christ' or through merely reading the Bible. Depression is first and foremost a medical issue and I hope that nobody will read this as a crass evangelistic effort. It is certainly not meant in this way - I am only seeking to document my own experience which I fully recognise will be different to the experiences of others.

Does the term 'Christian' mean anything anymore?

It is probably true to say that most of us think we know what the term 'Christian' means. Many of us use this term, believing we understand it and that everyone else understands what we mean by it. However, the term is used in a variety of different ways by various people. When we use the term ourselves, we cannot be sure that others understand it in the same way. So, what does the term 'Christian' actually mean, who does it apply to and how precious can we be about it?


The word 'Christian' or 'Christians' only appears three times in the Bible and is a translation of the Greek word Christianos which simply means 'follower of Christ.' We could argue then that the term 'Christian' can be applied to anybody considered to follow Christ. However, the obvious problem we run into is that there are a wide variety of traditions, beliefs and practices that all consider themselves to be following the teachings of Christ. Moreover, as is common in some circles, we cannot simply say that we follow Christ therefore anybody who disagrees with us is not following Christ and thus cannot be termed 'Christian.' This sort of thinking can only lead to the question 'where do we draw the line?' On this basis, we could not draw it on denominational lines as disagreements exist within denominations. We could not even draw it at one particular church as not all are in complete agreement within individual churches. Therefore, we end up reducing the term to one individual and making it meaningless as a descriptor.


Some have sought to argue that the term should only be applied to those who 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31a).' Again, however, we run into the problem that this also contains some ambiguity. Most evangelicals would see belief on Christ as manifest in a 'conversion experience' - a turning away from sin and a seeking forgiveness through the atoning work of Christ. However, other traditions might see this more as a general acceptance of the moral teachings of Jesus. Whilst there are arguments to be made, and a real answer to be known, regarding the nature of belief on Christ, the reality is that - in the same way that people understand the term 'Christian' in different ways - many understand the concept of belief in Christ in different ways too. If we simply say a Christian is one who believes on Christ we still find the same issues arise when we come to consider what is meant by belief 'on Christ.'


We must ultimately recognise that 'Christian' is a descriptive term. We may wish to keep it for particular people and traditions with whom we agree but we are perhaps not at liberty to do that. The term is typically applied to any person who believes that Jesus Christ was the messiah prophecied in the Old Testament, was the son of God and whose life and teachings form the basis of religious belief and practice. This rules out any tradition that merely considers Jesus to be an important prophet as well as those traditions that accept the teachings of Jesus but alongside, equal or lesser to, other prophets. This means that, despite whether we agree with their teachings or not, we must consider Catholics, Anglicans, Non-Conformists, Liberals, Conservatives, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists, amongst others as traditions belonging under the descriptive umbrella term 'Christian.'


Given the broad spectrum to which the term 'Christian' can be applied, to what extent can we say the term means anything anymore? Evangelicals tend to use the term 'Christian' to apply to those whom they consider to have been 'saved' through belief in Christ. This would be manifest through a conversion experience in which the believer repents of their sin, seeking forgiveness through Christ's atoning work on the cross. For a Liberal, however, the term 'Christian' might be applied to anybody who accepts the moral teachings of Jesus and seeks to apply them, as they see fit, in their own life. For the Catholic, the term 'Christian' can only be applied to those within the Catholic church. The range of beliefs, even amongst these three, is broad and yet if all come under the descriptive umbrella 'Christian' how can we say that the term really carries any meaning?


In reality, the term 'Christian' acts as nothing more than a descriptor of a wide-range of traditions based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. The broad spectrum of beliefs to which the term 'Christian' can be applied ultimately makes the term now meaningless. The different traditions who belong under the umbrella descriptor of 'Christianity' would use the term 'Christian' to infer all sorts of different beliefs and practices that would exclude many who might otherwise be included under the term. Moreover, it is clear that a Non-Conformist, Fundamentalist Evangelical has few beliefs in common with a High-Church, Liberal Anglican. When we apply the term 'Christian' to both these groups we begin to see how useless the term has become in explaining anything of those it is intended to describe.


Perhaps where the term is useful is in describing a general tradition. Although the term 'Christian' is a descriptor that is broad and wide-reaching, its use is perhaps less in describing those who belong under it so much as in establishing those who certainly do not belong. For example, whilst we may struggle to see what certain Christian denominations have in common it is clear that those from the Islamic or Hindu traditions certainly do not fit under the descriptor 'Christian.' The term acts better as a descriptor of those who do not belong than it does of those who do.


Nevertheless, we must conclude that the term 'Christian' has largely lost its meaning. We may, within particular denominations and traditions, use it as a shorthand to describe those who subscribe to our particular beliefs but really this is not the proper use of the term. Given that the term has largely lost its meaning, perhaps we should rethink calling people to 'become Christians.' In reality, we might know what we mean when we say this but it is highly likely that others mean something else.

Bible translations

In looking at bible translations, Bill Mounce has written an extremely helpful post which can be accessed here. I think it is true to say that many people pontificate about specific bible translations without really having any qualification to do so. Without a fluency in Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek we, all of us, are reliant upon the efforts of those who are able to translate. We may have translations which we prefer for reasons of accessibility or fluency but we must be very careful before pronouncing judgment upon 'lesser' translations if we ourselves are not able to translate the originals.


Reading Bill Mounce's post I think points 2 and 3 are particularly pertinent. I would also endorse his comment that 'I am not convinced that non-academic celebrities should be making pronouncements on translation theory.' In reality, I think this point could extend to all academics and non-academic who are not well versed in translation theory and are not capable of reading the original texts for themselves. Most importantly, however, is his final comment:

Life is too short, and hell is too hot, to not communicate the gospel to our subculture in language they can understand, whatever be that subculture.

The role of communion

Were this being written from a Brethren perspective the title of this post might refer to 'the Breaking of Bread', were it Anglican it might be 'Eucharist' and were it certain reformed churches it may be 'the Lord's Supper.' Although, between denominations, the words we use may differ and the means by which we receive the emblems varies the function and purpose of Communion remains the same. This post will refer to the taking of bread and wine as 'Communion.'


It is possible to cite three main reasons why we take Communion. Firstly, it exists for the believer to remember Christ's death and give thanks for purchasing their salvation (see Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:26). Secondly, it exists for believers to show their unity in Christ with one another (see 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 John 1:3; 1 John 1:7). Thirdly, it exists to let us look forward to Christ's return and the day he will call us to be with Him (see Matt. 26:29; Luke 22:18; Mark 14:25; 1 Cor. 11:26).


With these things in mind, and starting from a point upon which the vast majority would agree, we must firstly state that Communion is only for believers. Clearly, only believers can give thanks that Christ has purchased their salvation, only believers can claim to be one with other believers in Christ and only believers can look forward to the coming parousia. On this basis, some argue that the only requirement for taking Communion is to be a believer. However, others stipulate that one should be a member of a local congregation and, by extension, baptised before they can participate. Whilst I by no means take umbrage with those who suggest salvation is the only requirement for participation in Communion it would be my contention that the latter is the correct position for two principle reasons.


Firstly, one central purpose of Communion is to show our unity with other believers in Christ. If we are not willing to publicly join in membership with a local body of believers, how far can we say that we are truly united with them? If we reject fellowship with our fellow believers through joining a local church then we cannot expect to show our unity in Christ by taking Communion. Secondly, Paul states that

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

From this, we must determine that those who are in rebellion to God and harbour unrepentant sin should not take the emblems. This clearly rules out the non-believer, however, this may extend to some believers as well.


Peter is quoted very clearly in Acts 2:38 saying "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (ESV)." Jesus also commanded the disciples to "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matt 28:19-20a)." The apostle John notes 'By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:2-3).' When we consider all these verses together we must assert that those who refuse to be baptised are going against a clear scriptural command. Furthermore, by refusing to be baptised thereby not keeping a clear command, John suggests that this represents a lack of love for God and, by extension, fellow believers. If we shun the public statement of unity in Christ through baptism how can we legitimately show unity by taking Communion? 


As a result, one who will not become baptised or join in fellowship with a local church cannot be said to be unified with their fellow believers. They are openly rejecting scriptural commands and, as John notes, the sign of love for our fellow believers is that we love God and keep his commands. If we do not keep his command to be baptised we are not keeping his commands. If we will not publicly declare our unity through baptism or membership how can we claim unity with fellow believers? In reality, if we continue in rebellion against God we cannot be thankful for his forgiveness and we cannot participate in an act of unity as we are not truly united. On this basis, it is possible to argue that communion should only extend to baptised believers who are joined in fellowship to a congregation.


I would also contend that, given who it is for and the importance attached to it, Communion warrants its own service. Firstly, it seems a shame when Communion is relegated to a 10 minute tag-on at the end of a Sunday service. If we really believe that Communion is important should we not devote more time to it and make it the central focus of its own service? Secondly, given who Communion is for, the difficulties in stating the church's position on Communion and refusing the emblems to the ineligible are made much more problematic during normal Sunday services. Were the Communion given a service of its own the potential for ineligible people wishing to partake would be lessened and the ability to withold the emblems from those within the congregation (but not eligible to take part) need not become a major point of contention or awkwardness and need not draw the focus away from the centrality of Christ.


Above all else, Communion exists for believers to thank Christ for his atoning work on the cross, to show unity with fellow believers and to look forward to Christ's return. These issues are central and should provide the basis for all that happens in a Communion service.

Should Christians try to bring biblical law into civil society?

With the run-up to the general election Christians from a whole host of wide ranging backgrounds are urging one another to sign the Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience (which you can sign following the link if you so desire). The declaration itself is an attempt to encourage those in authority to uphold certain 'Christian' moral standards and allow people of faith to act freely in accordance with their consciences. From this flows an important question: Should Christians seek to impose a 'Christian' morality on a multicultural, multiethnic and multireligious society? It is not my intention to comment specifically on the Westminster 2010 Declaration nor do I want to encourage or discourage people from signing, or not signing, it. Instead, I simply want to explore the question of whether Christians should seek to implement their morality on society.


It is possible to argue that where the Bible makes clear and direct moral statements, such as in the Ten Commandments, these constitute a Christian moral code. As such, this is the best moral code for all people. Therefore, being the best moral code for all people, it must be right to enforce this code into civil law. This view, however, causes a number of difficulties. The Apostle Paul tells us:

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20, ESV).

These verses highlight the fact that the purpose of the law, that is the Ten Commandments, is to bring knowledge of sin. According to Paul, keeping the law does not justify anyone, it exists so that we can know what sin is. This, however, causes a two-fold problem for the view that we should bring the Ten Commandments into civil law.


Firstly, given that we are all by nature sinful, by bringing the Ten Commandments into civil law we introduce legislation into society that nobody - including those who want to implement it - can keep. Secondly, there are clear spiritual implications of the Ten Commandments that cannot be policed. We know that Jesus stated:

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Mtt 5:27-28, ESV).

and:

You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgement.' But I say to you everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council;  and whoever says, 'You Fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire (Mtt. 5:21-22, ESV).

Jesus claims that even our impure thoughts are as though we have physically broken these commandments. If we introduce the Ten Commandments into civil law we still cannot police sinful thought. Ultimately, this leads us to enforce only a part commandment. Worse still, by only enforcing the commandments in part we give the impression that sinful behaviour is merely a physical act and not inclusive of our thoughts as well. In this way, by seeking to enforce the Ten Commandments through law we water them down and make them less effectual. We change their purpose from highlighting sin to coercing righteousness and, in so doing, we achieve neither.


We must consider what our motivation is for seeking to enforce the Ten Commandments through civil law. In the verse quoted previously, Paul makes it abundantly clear that keeping the law does not justify us in the sight of God. As such, we will not bring anyone into the kingdom of God by enforcing the Ten Commandments through our legal system. If our motivation is not simply to bring people to God but to encourage a good moral standard for society we are equally going to fail. Without the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ there will be no change in behaviour. The Apostle John tells us clearly that:

the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed (John 3:19-20, ESV)

Unless we are changed by Christ there will be no change in our moral behaviour. Even where such things are enacted through civil law, and as we have seen they cannot be properly enacted and end up weakening the commandments themselves, behaviour will remain unchanged. This is witnessed throughout the Old Testament where the Israelites fell time and again away from the commandments that were enacted through their own civil law.


In reality, for the Christian, rather than wasting our time on changing a moral, outward law we should instead focus our time and attention on spreading the good news of the gospel which can change the hearts of men and women. By enacting moral laws we cannot hope to change the morality or sinful nature of anyone. By bringing people into a saving knowledge of Christ their hearts will be changed which will in turn cause them to live lives pleasing to God without the need for coercive legislation.


If we cannot implement the Ten Commandments, on what basis should we enact laws? All men, women and children are made in the image of God. As such, all people command a level of respect and dignity that extends beyond cultural, religious and ethnic differences. Due to the image in which they are made they demand equality and respect. Sinfulness cannot be a basis for removing such rights from people as the Apostle Paul notes, quoting the Psalms, 'None is righteous, no, not one (Rom 3:10, ESV).' Moreover, we cannot argue that some sins warrant removal of these rights and others do not. The Apostle James notes 'for whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it (Jam 2:10, ESV).'  As such, we are all sinful (Rom 3:10) and therefore all accountable for the whole of the law (Jam 2:10). Given that we are all guilty of the whole of the law, sin cannot be grounds for removing these basic rights, inherent by virtue of being made in God's image.


If we accept that there are basic rights that extend to all people the basis of our laws can only be as follows: Everything is lawful that does not impinge upon the common rights of others. Such a basis will inevitably mean that certain of the biblical commandments will be enacted in civil law. For example, if we accept that every person has the right to life, murder clearly becomes illegal as it impinges in the most direct way upon this basic right. However, other biblical commandments would not be enacted in civil law. For example, an unmarried couple who decide to have a sexual relationship do not impinge upon the basic rights of anybody else in society. As such, despite what the biblical teaching on the matter is, there is no justifiable reason to legislate against such behaviour in law.


As Christians, we must be careful to differentiate between the civil law which governs us and the moral law of the Bible by which we are called to live. We must recognise, first and foremost, that without saving knowledge of Christ any attempt to enact biblical law in society is simply a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We cannot change the moral thoughts and behaviours of people through civil law - this can only be done through Christ. When we recognise this, our focus should become less on seeking to change moral behaviour and more on seeking to change hearts with the gospel.


This should also change our view of civil law. Rather than seeking to enact a moral code that can never be truly kept we can instead support those laws that uphold the basic human rights that extend to people worldwide by virtue of the fact that they are made in the image of God. Moreover, sin is not a basis for removing such rights and our law should reflect this. As Christians we are called to highlight sin through the preaching of the gospel, not to punish it. It is not through civil law that people will come to know sin but by the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, we should not concern ourselves with punishing sin through civil law. Instead, we should focus on preaching the gospel, upholding those rights that extend to all people and allow all behaviours in law that do not impinge on such rights. This does not mean that we cannot highlight sinful behaviour in the preaching of the gospel but it does mean that we should have no part in condemning or punishing people by law for such behaviour.