Rev Barry Trayhorn forced to resign for quoting Bible in chapel

The salient facts of this case are these:

• HMP Littlehey is a category C men's prison and Young Offender institute in Cambridgeshire. Chapel is entirely voluntary. Nobody is required or forced to attend, sing hymns or listen to scripture.
• Rev Trayhorn is an ordained Pentecostal minister who worked as a gardener at the prison. He has helped out with prison chapel services at the invitation and under the supervision of the coordinating Chaplain, the Rev’d David Kinder, on behalf of the Criminal Justice Forum in the Diocese of Ely.
• Whilst leading worship in chapel in May 2014 Rev Trayhorn quoted the passage 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (the quoted version is unknown).
• Four days later, a complaint was lodged against Rev Trayhorn. He was immediately suspended from helping with chapel services, and was subsequently told that his comments during the service were ‘homophobic’ and breached national prison policy.
• Rev Trayhorn was informed a disciplinary hearing would follow. He was subsequently signed off work with a stress related illness. During this time, his manager visited him three times at home to discuss work-related issues. On two of those occasions, a senior prison official was present.
• On 4th November 2014, Rev Trayhorn felt that he had no choice but to resign. Two days later, a disciplinary hearing was held in his absence, when he was given a ‘final written warning’.
• Rev Trayhorn, backed by the Christian Legal Centre, is now taking HMP Littlehey to an employment tribunal where he is claiming he was forced out of his main paid job as a gardener at the jail because of the intimidation he suffered as a result of his faith.

Several things are worthy of note and a few comments seem necessary.

First, as the Archbishop Cranmer blog notes, Rev Trayhorn's claim is not entirely unreasonable. For "it was not Barry Trayhorn’s skills as a paid gardener which had been called into question, but his competence to lead worship as an unpaid chaplain’s assistant." By all accounts, Rev Trayhorn's gardening skills have not entered into any discussion and there has been no complaint received over his horticultural prowess. It does, therefore, appear very much as though his quote from the Bible has directly led to the loss of his job as gardener.

Second, Rev Trayhorn received a final written warning at a disciplinary hearing in his absence. Again, as noted by Cranmer, given his gardening skills were not under scrutiny and he had "no previous misdemeanours or complaints recorded against him, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he was disciplined for quoting scriptures about sin which were deemed unpalatable by sinners."

Third, it seems worth pointing out that Rev Trayhorn did not major on sexual sin at the expense of other forms of sin. It does appear his quote includes the sexually immoral (that is the heterosexual immoral as the verse also goes on to mention those who practice homosexuality), idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. Across the range of those sins, and in line with traditional evangelical thought, the list takes aim at just about all people everywhere. It is a more extensive list of Paul's basic comment in Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Fourth, Rev Trayhorn was not disciplined for offering a particular interpretive view of the verses quoted. In fact, the man only went on to say "the Christian message [is] that God will forgive those who repent." It is, therefore, highly likely that Rev Trayhorn was disciplined specifically for quoting directly from the Bible.

All of this adds up to the ludicrous position that suggests it is now a felony to state the Bible's ethical teaching to convicted felons. It is equally ridiculous that prisoners, many of whom have been incarcerated for heinous sexual crimes which both the penal system and wider society recognise as ethically wrong, can claim offence at the biblical position (which is in agreement with both the penal system and wider society on this issue) and make a felon out of the man who dared quote it. Truly this is a nonsense.

Aside from all of this, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that significant portions of the Bible are now prohibited for public proclamation. We are censoring the ethical teachings of a book that played a central role in forming the ethical standard by which our own penal system abides. We are deeming a book that was, until very recently, a central part of school daily assemblies and a copy of which was given to every hotel room in the land to be incompatible with nebulous "British values" which, if they even exist at all, have been drawn from the selfsame source.

Most troubling of all, we already know about the government's plans to crack down on "extremism in all its forms" (see here, here and here etc). It seems quite clear that ill-defined "British values" must be pressed into every sphere of British public and private life. Anything that does not accord with them will be clamped down. The Home Secretary has already made it clear that those who speak against orthodox cultural utterances stand to lose charitable status and assets such as privately held buildings and cash funds. Some evangelical preachers who pose no physical threat to anybody - regardless of whether you agree with their position or the way in which they communicate it - have begun to feel the force of these measures (eg here).

And this seems to be yet another case of it happening. The chapel at HMP Littlehey is neither a public space nor a mandatory requirement for all prisoners. It is attended voluntarily and nobody is forced to partake in worship or to listen to God's word against their will. It is, therefore, utterly incredible that the Bible can be censored during a private meeting of Christian worship. Whilst this particular case beggars belief, it is all the more troubling that what is happening in HMP Littlehey and has already reached into some private meeting houses, will increasingly impede the public reading of God's word and the clear proclamation and explanation of what it contains in more and more churches. 

Measures intended to impede acts of terrorism and those propagating such acts are increasingly being used against all manner of political protesters and benign religious groups who pose no physical threat to anybody but who nonetheless do not assent to cultural orthodoxy. The measures are politically obtuse and utterly cowardly. For it seems clear enough that to avoid being seen to target one particular religious group, all people of faith - regardless of what they actually teach and believe or their propensity to call for the death of the infidel - are embroiled in a war against one small group, within one particular strain, of one particular branch of one particular religion. By any measure, it is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not reasonable and it should not stand.

Why the Christian has nothing to fear in Halloween

I posted yesterday, for those who were worried about such things, about why ghosts and ghouls most definitely do not exist. But, of course, there are plethora of monsters the likes of which the Bible doesn't give such clear reason to believe don't exist. And then there's all the scary stuff the Bible does talk about. Though ghosts and ghouls may not be real, are there things - in the realm of the seen or unseen - of which we should be frightened? Let me give you a few reasons to put your mind at ease.

The Bible is clear there is one thing alone to be feared

Both Matthew and Luke make clear that there is but one thing to be feared above all else:

“I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!" - Luke 12:4f

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." - Matthew 10:28

As the writer to the Hebrews says: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." For, as he says earlier in the letter, "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement" (Hebrews 9:27).

In Jesus, the Christian has no need to fear the judgement

The apostle John tells us clearly enough that in Jesus there is no fear of God. He says:

15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgement, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. (1 John 4:15-18).

If we abide in God, his love is perfected within us so that we can have confidence on the day of judgement. If fear of judgement has to do with punishment, if we abide in God we have no fear of such punishment on the day of judgement.

Paul, who obviously got the same memo, says this: "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). Similarly, Isaiah 43:1 says “But now, this is what the Lord says…Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.”

Taken together with Matthew and Luke's earlier statements, the Christian can say along with the Psalmist “The Lord is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life—of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalm 27:1).

In Jesus, the Christian has no need to fear outside powers

Both Jesus (Matthew 6:25-34) and Paul (Philippians 4:6) command us not to be anxious or worry. Though many would say that is easier said than done, the Christian has very real grounds to not be impeded by such things.

For a start, Paul emphatically makes the point in Romans 8:38f:

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Peter also tells us to cast our anxiety onto God "because he cares for you" (1 Peter 5:7). So nothing can separate us from God's love with which he cares for us. As a sovereign God with all things in his hand, this means our worries and anxieties can really be given over to him in a meaningful way.

Paul really lays it on thick in Ephesians 1 when he says:

that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:18-23).

You cannot fail to miss the central point: Christ is "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion... in this age... [and] the one to come." There is nothing for the Christian to fear in Christ because he is over all. All things have been put under his feet. That is surely a God on whom we can cast all our cares and anxieties, wherever they come from.

Knowing a little something about the magic and cultic practices in Ephesus at this time only lends further weight to Paul's point. Ephesus was awash with pagan practices, magic and mystery cults, mantras, spells, charms and the rest. The Ephesian believers were constantly pulled toward such things (e.g. Acts 19:13-20). Paul's concern was to make abundantly clear that there is no power, ruler, dominion or authority - whether physical or spiritual - that can surpass the ultimate rule of Jesus Christ. Paul is equally clear that the believer shares in his rule and has that same power at work in them (cf. Eph 2:6; 3:16, 19f). It is for this reason the believer has nothing to fear in Christ.

All of this leads to the conclusion that in Christ, the Christian has nothing to fear. So whether your view of Halloween is that it is really dangerous or a bit of fun; whether you see the monsters and ghouls as synonymous with the evil Spirits Paul warns about or you think them jejune anachronisms; Paul is clear that the believer has nothing to fear in such things. Christ is above all, ruling with power that exceeds all. In Christ, the believer has no need to worry because that same power is at work in us.

So whether you decide to shun Halloween, redeem it with a nicer alternative or you choose to be part of it like the rest of our culture, the biblical takeaway is: do not fear. In Christ, you are safe, secure and one with the ruler who is above all things. Take courage.

Worried about Halloween ghosts? Never fear, here's why they definitely don't exist

For those of a sensitive disposition, Halloween can be a troublesome time of year. It is a celebration of all things ghoulish and creepy and a wonder that it passes as a culturally acceptable form of fun aimed at children. For a range of views on how Christians should approach Halloween, you can read Canon J. John outline his problems with Halloween here. Glen Scrivener explains (in very different form) why he has no particular issue with Halloween here and here. For a third opinion, you can hear (or read) John Piper's view here.

It isn't my aim to speak into the rights and wrongs of Halloween here. I shall leave you to follow the various links and make up your own mind. I want to offer a little succour to the frightened and scared. To that end, if you find yourself frightened of things that go bump in the night, let me offer you a few reasons why ghosts and ghouls definitely do not exist.

Before some smart aleck asks "what about the Holy Ghost/Spirit?" let us define our terms. I am using the word 'ghost' to mean the wandering spirits of the dead. I mean what most psychics and mediums mean by the term: departed souls who have not found rest. That is spirits of once living people who now float around in some netherworld occasionally appearing to living people or chucking things around rooms.

So how can I be so sure ghosts and ghouls absolutely do not exist? Here are a few reasons:

After death comes judgement

The writer of Hebrews makes it quite clear: "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement" (Heb 9:27). If there is a judgement after death, it seems pretty obvious that there are no people left hanging. The idea that there may be some departed souls who never quite made it to the other side doesn't account for the fact that all people will stand before almighty God and give an account of their life. Unless God has appointed wandering the earth without rest as one of the possible outcomes of judgement, there can be no such things as the ghosts of departed spirits wandering the earth.

God has not appointed wandering the earth as a possible consequence of judgement

The parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-30) makes pretty clear there are two possible outcomes in the judgement. If we take the fairly obvious interpretation that the wheat are those who belong to Christ and the tares are those who reject him, one is either gathered into the Lord's barn (Heaven) or put into bundles to be burned (Hell). If you're not sold on the imagery, the apostle John puts it in starker terms in Revelation 20:11-15 (note especially v15). If there are only two possible consequences following the judgement, the idea of wandering souls roaming the earth is rather discounted.

After judgement, there can be no return to earth

As the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) makes clear, those who have been appointed to Heaven or Hell cannot return to the world after judgement. So even if we wanted to accept the possibility that, having been judged and appointed to either Heaven or Hell, one might return to the land of the living (à la Hamlet's father), the bible simply doesn't allow the possibility. The concept of returning to earth after judgement is foreign to anything we read in the Bible.

How should Christians respond to Socialism? A response to John Piper

In his latest ask pastor John podcast, John Piper answered a question in relation to the ongoing political campaign of Bernie Sanders. I suppose it was inevitable that a renowned evangelical pastor, in a country noted for its links between evangelicalism and right-wing politics, would eventually be asked a question about a high profile politician, currently in the public spotlight, who identifies as socialist (of one sort or another). 

Socialism has always been something of an uncomfortable political bedfellow for a country close to a rabid phobia of state involvement in anything. So an American evangelical answering the question 'how should Christians think about socialism?' was never likely to end in unmitigated endorsement. And whilst it is true that no political system will ever be perfect, and certainly no political system will ever fully align with scripture (and scripture was never intended to make one do so), let me explain why I disagree with pastor John.

Before I go on, I should point out that I have been here before. In response to a post by John Stevens, National Director of the FIEC, some years ago I outlined why I disagreed with his position on socialism (and, therefore, by extension with Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus). You can read that article here. I am an FIEC pastor and I really like John. I often read his blog and find his posts quite insightful and helpful. Likewise, I've found much of what Wayne Grudem has written highly valuable and helpful. And, in the same vein, I like John Piper too. I find his writing and preaching usually very helpful, he is theologically excellent and he is a huge asset to the church (as are these other men too).

First, let me highlight where I agree with Piper. His opening salvo regarding the church - "in the church no one should go hungry. In the church no one should be without a place to stay..." etc - is spot on. His closing line in that very same paragraph, that within the church all this should be without compulsion, is absolutely correct. Nobody should be under any doubt that the church ought to be generous and giving without coercion and force. I can also agree that Acts 2:44-45 is not an example of the early church being demanded to give to those in need. There was no compulsion, just a heart changed by God's Spirit. Beyond this, Piper is quite right that "thou shalt not steal" does indeed indicate the ability to keep what is yours and Paul does emphasise cheerfully giving, freely and not under duress (cf. 2 Cor 8-9). I basically agree with Piper's view on funding state churches (if not entirely for the reasons he intimates).

Here, however, is where I think Piper goes astray. He argues that socialism either (1) establishes legal, government or military coercion to establish social ownership at the expense of private ownership; or, (2) uses coercion to establish social control — if not ownership, at least control of the means of production in society. He goes on to state "And thus, through control, you effectively eliminate many of the implications and motivations of private ownership."

Now this errs in presuming that scripture demands private ownership. Yes, scripture presumes the existence of private ownership, but it never suggests that it is inherently good or the fundamental basis of state economics. Equally, Piper errs in presuming that socialism stands against all forms of private ownership. I see no reason to believe either of those presumptions are necessarily true. 

A further problem with Piper's answer is that his application of the above verses rule out taxation and state funding for just about anything. If giving freely is the driving principle then, by definition, all forms of taxation and state intervention are out of the question. This means no governance, no military spending, no forms of revenue. The logical conclusion renders the national coffers the equivalent of a charity living on sporadic handouts at the whim of the people. All giving must be free and not done out of compulsion. Even the right-wing social conservative Peter Hitchens recognises this principle (see here at 4:40 as an example). As he says: "every state has to intervene in something. Once you've decided you must intervene to create a navy, then you've pretty much sold the principle".

Moreover, whilst I agree with Piper's view on the giving in Acts 2:42-43, it is a category error to apply it to politics and economic systems. It is interesting to me that, when the Spirit is at work amongst a true community of believers, things appear very much more socialist than capitalist. However, that is not a basis for arguing these verses represent some sort of socialist manifesto. These verse clearly describe the Spirit at work within a community of believers and we cannot simply apply it to political and economic systems on the world stage. For exactly the same reason I do not think 2 Corinthians 8-9 can be applied to world economic systems, the principle of generous, free giving would be a similar category mistake. Paul is talking about giving within the community of believers. He is talking about what should happen amongst those who have been made regenerate toward other Christian people in need. He is not talking about what should happen at a governmental level or within economic systems.

Piper moves on and takes aim at the economic system of Denmark and others in Europe, arguing that over half those who live in such places live off the state in some way. He simply states this as negative without giving any grounds for why this really represents a problem biblically (save his spurious logic outlined above). By all means make a case - as he goes on to imply - that there are economic problems with socialism (such as you believe them to exist). What seems specious is to suggest that biblical descriptors of what ought to happen within the church should define what happens at a state economic level.

Now, there are some biblical principles and doctrines that ought to be brought to boot on this discussion. First, as I argued here, tax is not inherently unbiblical. It does not amount to state theft and it is not akin to sin. Both Jesus (Mk 12:17) and Paul (Rom 13:6f) make that clear enough. If tax amounts to state theft and/or sin, then Jesus and Paul are clearly encouraging all believers to participate in sin. It is evidently not the case that is what they are doing. To quote Peter Hitchens, if you take Jesus' and Paul's points, "then you've pretty much sold the principle". Ergo, far from being sinful, taxation can indeed be a force for good.

Second, let's refer back to Piper's reference of Acts 2:42-43. It is clear enough that this is what happens when the Spirit is at work in God's people. Free, generous giving without the need for compulsion. The question is, what do we do for those who are not so indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Are we likely to see widespread, free giving without compulsion. Years of Western capitalism, which allows the rich to keep much of their money, rather suggests not. Even in America, where there is more of a culture of charitable giving, even the slightest probing makes clear enough this is to avoid losing more money through taxation! It is not charitable like Acts 2, it is a selfish bid to avoid such charity!

It is theologically and empirically obtuse to presume that making a few people very rich will work for the benefit of all. James 2:6f makes the case clearly enough. The doctrine of total depravity also speaks against the idea that the unregenerate would likely give their money away simply out of the generosity of their own hearts. If James, along with the doctrine of total depravity, suggest individuals may need some encouragement in helping their fellow man, and it be not sinful to implement taxation, it follows that taxation as a means of helping the poor is a thoroughly biblically consistent position. Moreover, if scripture obligates the believer to care for the poor and needy (e.g. here and here) and the above means are not sinful, it strikes me as thoroughly reasonable to campaign for a high tax, redistributive system as an excellent means to care for the less fortunate. The Christians, campaigning for higher taxes on themselves as a means of achieving these ends, seems to be perfectly consistent with these biblical imperatives.

Free market capitalism makes no credible allowance for total depravity and inculcates greed as its very motivating force. It allows the rich to remain rich and does nothing, ultimately or inherently by the very nature of the system, to help the poor. Indeed, untrammelled free market capitalism uses sin to motivate and does nothing to encourage the biblical imperatives to have an eye for the poor, needy and less fortunate. If nothing else, socialism at least attempts to address the very problems the bible considers problems. It, contrary to popular belief, actually takes better account of total depravity than does the capitalist system. It is no coincidence that the Socialism of the British Labour movement was started by a Scottish lay preacher and built on the back of Welsh Methodism. Free market capitalism can hardly be said to have been borne out of any adherence to biblical principles. 

As Piper rightly notes, "every economic and political system will eventually collapse where there are insufficient moral impulses to restrain human selfishness and encourage honesty and good deeds even when no one is watching." It strikes me that capitalism makes no effort to address either of those issue. It rather hopes for a 'trickle down' effect (or a work of the Holy Spirit to give them a heart to share aright). A presumption that the rich will try to hoard their money necessitates a system that redistributes their wealth (total depravity nigh on demands it for the unregenerate). Given that politics cannot instil a work of grace, you tell me, dear reader, how Christians ought to respond to socialism.

If your ecclesiology stands or falls on the word "church"...

Over at Think Theology, Kenny Burchard has written about the fact that Tyndale did not include the word church in his translation of the Bible. He has also shared something of his own ecclesiological journey to help us understand his position. John Stevens of the FIEC also shared his post with the following question: How might thinking/practice differ if "church" was always translated "congregation" in Bible? My short answer is this: if your ecclesiology stands or falls on the English translation of the word church, you are probably doing it wrong.

Burchard made much of the fact that Tyndale pointedly translates e0kklesia as congregation, not church. However, Tyndale's bible used the word congregation because the ecclesiastical standard model set by The Church of his day was errant. Tyndale was not attempting to alter perceptions by using a different word for church, he was trying to escape the association with the established Church. It was the established Church that sought to define ecclesiology based on the translation of the word church, not Tyndale.

Second, majoring on the etymology of e0kklesia meaning "called out ones" rather falls foul of the root word fallacy. As noted some while ago at the Scribble Preach blog:

While combining the two root words (“called out from”) does indeed create something like “called out ones”, the truth is, the word ekklesia is never used that way in the New Testament or its contemporaries. In fact, ekklesia was used to refer to a group of philosophers, mathematicians, or any other kind of assembly in the Greco-Roman world. So unless we’re supposing that actors and gladiators were called to a holy lifestyle by assembling together, we can’t create a relationship between holiness and ekklesia necessarily. While it’s true that the church is composed of “called out” ones – that’s not the particular point of this word. It just means “assembly” or “gathering”.

Burchard argues that the "literal" understanding of e0kklesia means "called out" and seeks to argue, from this, that the word congregation is a better translation as it focuses on community and not on buildings. Yet, the supposed literal "called out" meaning is not the actual meaning of the word. Though congregation is a perfectly valid rendering, it has absolutely nothing to do with being called out or forming a community. It is simply an assembled gathering of people.

Third, and most importantly, just about everybody recognises that the word church has a range of meanings in scripture. Here are just some of them:

• Eph 5:25 - the church - all people, throughout all time, saved by faith in Jesus
• Gal 1:13 - the church - all professing Christians, real or not, that belong to visible congregations
• 1 Cor 11:18 - the church - a gathered meeting
• Rom 16:4f - the churches/the church - a group of separate gatherings and a particular local gathering in one place

If we take Tyndale's congregation translation, that fits perfectly well with the meaning in the latter two passages. However, if we apply his translation to the first two, congregation doesn't translate the meaning terribly well. It is equally fair to say, if we take a leaden view of church as meaning either church buildings or formal gatherings, we also run into problems with some of these passage. However, just about everybody recognises that church has a range of meanings and must be applied in different ways depending on whatever the context demands.

What is more, most approaches to church extend beyond the word e0kklesia. The command in Hebrews 10:25, to make a habit of meeting together, does not stand or fall on this word; e0kklesia isn't even mentioned in the context. Nonetheless, most agree that the writer is telling us to continue going, serving and being part of a local church body (or congregation if you like). Likewise, the biblical imperative to appoint elders and deacons insists on some sort of formal structure within a visible body. If we are using congregation as a means of ridding ourselves of any structure within the church, these leadership passages speak against being able to do so. If we are trying to use church to insist on a greater level of formality and structure than members/deacons/elders then we are likely using that word in a way it was never intended. There are plenty of other examples but these two should suffice to make the point. Ecclesiology, that is the way we do church, is not only determined by our understanding of the word e0kklesia.

So here is the basic issue. If our ecclesiology stands or falls upon the way we translate the word e0kklesia - especially if we leadenly apply our translation in exactly the same way in every context - then there will almost certainly be something deficient about the way we are doing church.

Would this make your list of 'the worst sins'?

"For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." (Eph 5:5)

In our church, we are just drawing to a close in Daniel and I have been preparing our next series in Ephesians which is due to start a week on Sunday. I was recently putting together a sermon on Eph 5:3-14, due to be delivered midway through October (yes, I really do prepare sermons that far in advance!). As I was doing so, I was particularly struck by Eph 5:5. You can see the verse above.

By way of orientation, Paul's general thrust in the preceding verses is to explain how Christians ought to live in the nitty-gritty of everyday Christian life. His main concern in 5:3-14 is to encourage believers to live as people of light. He then goes on to explain precisely how we are to do that.

In 5:3-5, Paul is trying to explain what sort of behaviour is inappropriate for Christian people. He is not trying to lay down the law and have a go at the reader. Rather, he is trying to say that you were once totally unconcerned about these sorts of things but now, as Christian people, you want to avoid these behaviours. It is meant to be an encouragement to Christian people he knows are keen to avoid the things he lists. 

When we get to 5:5, Paul is implying that these believers will inherit "the kingdom of Christ and God" because they no longer engage in these practices. Of course, the reverse of this remains true not least because, rather than being implied, it is specifically what Paul says. Those people who are given over to these sorts of behaviour show that they never really belonged to Christ and thus will not inherit the kingdom.

Most Christian people affirm that those who are given over to sexual immorality or continually doing whatever makes for impurity (1) show that they are not true believers. Rightly, we should put all the appropriate caveats on that and distinguish between those given over/continually practicing/walking in sin and those who have fallen into sin but are repentant. Nonetheless, most are prepared to say those who continually practice these two things are not walking in Christ and will not inherit the kingdom. In fact, as most Christian people manage to avoid such major sin throughout their Christian life, it is readily apparent that those walking in them must be disregarding Jesus' commands and place themselves outside of his people (2). So far, so in line with Paul's thinking.

However, Paul doesn't only talk about sexual immorality and impurity. He actually talks about three areas of sin: sexual immorality, impurity and covetousness. Though the tendency of most Christians is to agree with Paul on the first two, I suspect many of us have little or no concern regarding covetousness in reality.

What is particularly concerning is that Paul doesn't even put covetousness in the same bracket as sexual immorality and impurity. Now, most of us don't put them under the same banner either but, unlike us, Paul puts covetousness in a worse category of sin than the first two. It is covetousness alone which Paul links to idolatry which, throughout the Old Testament, was the sin that most consistently and inevitably drew the righteous anger of God.

It is worth mentioning that at the heart of sexual immorality and impurity is covetousness. In each case, we want what is not ours and/or we want more of what we may currently have in part. These first two are, to some degree, an overflow of a covetous heart. And covetousness is idolatry because it is seeking satisfaction and joy in something other than Christ. We want what does not belong to us because we believe whatever it is will make us complete. We are saying such things will satisfy us in a way that Christ does not/cannot. That is idolatry.

Most of us can conceive of reasons to take action, or begin the steps of church discipline, against someone who has been found doing what is sexually immoral. Likewise, it is easy to think of times we do the same against public impurity of one sort or another. But I suspect most of us could not conceive m/any circumstances under which we would take action against covetousness. And that is perverse given that Paul sees it as worse than these other two. He at least sees it as at the root of these other two.

The reason for our quandary is obvious enough. Most of us are prone to some form of covetousness. It has become one of those "respectable sins". In fact, we can even "christianise" covetousness and make what is fundamentally sinful into a virtue. We covet particular gifts, we covet recognition or we covet the size and work of other churches. We even tell ourselves that such covetousness is for God's glory. And yet, Paul says this is all idolatry.

I have no great answer to our condition except for repentance and faith in Christ. Rather than pointing fingers at "those big sins", perhaps we are harbouring significant sins of our own that we have made respectable. It is a reminder to all of us, if we are continually walking in and characterised by these sins, then perhaps we are standing outside of God's kingdom. Again, we must make appropriate caveats. There is a difference between falling into and walking in covetousness. One speaks of a constant state of mind, a regular discontent and continual longing for what does not belong to you. The other speaks of an irregular discontent and longing which, though still sinful, shows some desire not to be characterised by a covetous heart. It is the former which signifies our lack of standing in Christ.

Nonetheless, it is a stark reminder that we are sinful people. We are only in a right relationship with God based on our standing in Christ. God does not love us more or less depending on our performance each day. Yet, if we are truly in Christ, our lives will reflect our new identity in him. The question is not whether we have done these sins. It is whether we are characterised and continually walking in these sins. This applies as much to covetousness, if not more so, than to these other things.

Notes

1. Impurity is often linked to sexual immorality by Paul but it is not exclusively tied to it. Though impurity encompasses sexual immorality, it is a much wider term that covers anything that might defile us before God
2. John Newton used to make a similar case that most Christians avoid the most major and obvious sins but fail to grow because they fail to deal with (seemingly) smaller sins. You can read more on that here and here

Why you must do the hard work of thinking about scripture

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Rom 12:2)

Paul tells us to be transformed by "the renewal of your mind". Whatever that may mean, it seems clear enough that the renewal of our minds is for the purpose of discerning God's will. Discernment has to do with understanding. Paul's point is that if we are to understand and work out the will of God, we have to - at some level - engage our minds in order to know it.

In Isaiah 1:18, God says "come now, let us reason together". God wants to reason with you. But reason, by definition, requires the engagement of our minds. We reason with our brains, thinking and working out what seems reasonable. God, who is far above us and does not need to tell us why or how he does anything, nevertheless calls us to reason with him. Who are we that God should explain himself to us? Yet, he chooses to explain and communicate something about himself to you and I.

Here, then, lies the issue. If we are prone to throwing up our hands and saying "I don't understand" to shut down thinking through scripture, or we refuse to engage with God's word meaningfully, we are throwing God's gracious desire to reason with his creatures back in his face. We are saying to God "I don't care what you have communicated, and I don't care that you condescend to reason with someone like me, I don't want to engage". God wants to communicate with you, he wants to reason with you, he gives us his word so we can understand something about him. If God is there and he has communicated something to us, surely it is vital for us to work out what he has to say.

Now, I am not saying it is wrong to find the Bible difficult to get your head around. It can be hard to understand at times. What I am saying is that we should not throw up our hands in despair, claim we can't understand and therefore not bother trying. Simply because something is hard does not make it worthless. Simply because something is hard doesn't mean we should give up trying to pursue it. Simply because understanding God's word involves engaging our brains in work that is sometimes difficult and intense does not mean we should give up trying to understand it altogether.

Rather than throwing in the towel, perhaps we should pray that the God who communicates would make his word clear to us. It makes sense that if God wants us to understand him, he will make himself understood and help us if we bother to ask. It means rather than saying "this is too difficult", we should wrestle with the text until we come to understand it. We should engage our brains in trying to understand and our prayers in asking God to make it known. That may be hard, that may take a long time, we may not be natural readers and thinkers but it is the necessary work we must all do if we are to understand what God has to say to us.

God calls us to renew our minds so we can discern his will. His will is written for us in scripture. That means we must engage our minds and wrestle with even the hardest bits of the text so we can understand what God has to say. If God wants to reason with us, we must be prepared to reason with him. We must be prepared to engage our minds and work out what seems reasonable based upon what he communicates. 

In reality, if we won't engage our brains we are not really loving the Lord in the way he commands us to do (Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27). We may love him with our hearts and desires, we may serve him with our strength but if we won't sit and do the hard work of thinking about the Bible we are still holding back our minds from the Lord. To do that is to fail to love him in the way he demands to be loved.

British values, EDOs and whether we'll keep our church buildings

Now they are free of their Liberal Democrat shackle, the Conservative government will press ahead with plans to scrap the human rights act and introduce Extremism Disruptions Orders (EDOs) based upon "British Values" (whatever those are supposed to be). I previously commented on EDOs here. However, there are a few new features that warrant comment.

David Cameron states:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.

This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values. (Source: Guardian)

It is, therefore, apt for Politics Home to state 'David Cameron is promising to introduce a bill in his first Queen’s Speech that will give authorities stronger powers to clamp down on radical groups and individuals – even if they have not broken the law.'

The Guardian claims the measures are intended to give the police 'power to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual'. Harmful is defined as a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress. The measures will allow for bans on broadcasting and requirements to submit to the police in advance any proposed speech and any web, social media, or print publications. Extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places are also in view. The bill will also contain new powers to close premises "where extremists seek to influence others".

All of this is done in the name of promoting the heretofore undefined concept of "British values". When pressed on this idea, we are told British values incorporate such novelties as freedom of speech and tolerance of others. This either means we have our British values mixed-up or such measures are not really in the name of British values. For, it seems strange to defend free speech and tolerance by denying free speech and tolerance to all views but state prescribed orthodoxies. If free speech and tolerance are truly British values, that should surely extend to speech we find hateful and unpleasant. Indeed, what room is there for the exercise of tolerance if we are never faced with opposing views we must tolerate? Throwing people in prison for expressing unorthodox views - whatever they may be - is a strange approach to tolerance and free speech. Dare I say, it isn't really tolerant at all.

The major problem with these limits on free speech is that they are the slippery slope to repression and authoritarianism. Though judgment may begin at the house of radicalised Islamist terrorists and sympathisers, it very quickly narrows in to those who hold a whole raft of views outside of mainstream thought. Theresa May has already alighted upon those who oppose gay equality legislation as "extremist". Whatever your views on that particular issue, it is surely not right to criminalise those who disagree (unless they have violent thoughts towards those who don't share their views and plan to act upon them). It has political ramifications too. Judgment will begin with those archetypal extremists in the BNP but will soon narrow to take in UKIP, the hard-right of the conservative party any number of "extremist" left-wing parties and the hard-left of the Labour party. 

The rhetoric being employed in favour of this legislation is precisely the same as that used to try and suppress those movements most people today see as vital moments in history. At one time, the Chartists, the Suffragettes, the Labour movement, the Civil Rights movements of America and Northern Ireland, those fighting apartheid in South Africa, those asking for Home Rule for Ireland, just about any independence movement and any number of other significant historical movements have been labelled "extremist" or some similar epithet. 

I am not suggesting those being radicalised by Islamists sit within this same company. However, two things should be said. First, it is the unstated consequences of this legislation that will inevitably impact the newer movements that could potentially sit amongst such historic company. Secondly, some of these historical movements - often church-based dissenting movements - sought to enshrine the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in British law. For several hundred years those rights have been broadly recognised. It is, therefore, immense folly to claim to uphold British values - especially the values of freedom of speech and religion that were won primarily by dissenting churchmen - whilst simultaneously eroding the freedom of those very people to exercise those rights. Threatening prosecution and the removal of buildings for stating views that do not accord with state orthodoxy is a return to medieval rule whereby the governing religion is not Protestant or Catholic but a secularism that isn't fully realised and still hides behind a veneer of the more palatable facets and labels of Christendom.

The way in which the limits on free speech have been applied over recent years is well documented. Street preachers have been the ones who faced the brunt of these pernicious laws and the militancy of those who are desperate to find offence in the things of faith being presented in the public square. Unfortunately, street preaching has fallen out of favour in many Christian circles. I don't know whether it is out of fear of man, embarrassment of the mode, a lack of belief in the power of the gospel and the folly of preaching or something else altogether. Whatever the reason, it sometimes felt as though many unwilling to engage in such public proclamation sat idly by whilst those brave enough to do it faced the ire of the law. It was as though many viewed police involvement as the comeuppance of those foolish enough to engage in such outmoded practices.

As I have argued throughout my posts on free speech, what was being done to evangelists on the street was soon to come home to roost in church buildings. And such is coming to pass. EDOs are specifically designed to root out "extremism in all its forms" and grants powers to close down buildings and venues in which "hate speech" (as yet to be properly defined) is propagated. This was a potential Martin Niemöller moment, and I'll leave it to you to decide how we fared on that front. The offence being taken on the street is now going to be taken in the church. In fact, offence needn't even be taken in the church. Sermons and studies placed online, or even "extremist" views being taught in principle could spell the end of our church buildings and venues and/or the vetting of our sermons and studies.

One can only hope the government sees sense and changes course. If not, this may be an issue on which the church will have to suffer if it is to remain faithful to the word of God. We can nevertheless rest assured that the church of Jesus Christ was not built on the back of state sponsorship and nice church buildings. The early church did quite well without well disposed primary schools offering them a nice venue on a Sunday. What we need, as much now as then, is a work of the Holy Spirit and deep belief in sufficiency of the scriptures. It takes God's word and a work of his Spirit to bring revival. Perhaps we need to lose some of our buildings before we fully realise that.

Four reasons I would restrict communion to church members

It is probably worth noting from the outset, I pastor a church that currently practices an open table. Though this is not where I sit by conviction, as I'm sure you've gathered from the title of the post, this is not a matter of first-order importance for me. The members are aware of my position and it inevitably makes its way into my teaching as (I understand) particular texts demand but I submit to the church on this issue. However, let me offer a handful of reasons why I believe we ought to restrict communion to confirmed members of the church (1).

Communion symbolises unity with the body

1 Cor 10:17 makes clear that one of the central purposes of communion is to express our unity with one another. Given communion is an ordinance administered by the local church, we are specifically expressing unity with the visible body of believers with whom we are gathered at the moment of partaking, not the entire catholic church. There is something flawed about our concept of unity if we argue we are unified by taking communion but not so much that we dare join the local church in membership. In what world are we united with the body if we will not join in membership with it? Can we really proclaim with a clear conscience before God, and the watching world, that we are, in actual fact, one with the very people we refuse to join?

Communion symbolises association with God's people

Outside of membership, the church ordinances make no sense. 1 Cor 12:13 tells us that baptism marks our union with Christ and entrance into his church. It is the initial step in publicly associating with Jesus and his people. The Lord's Supper, likewise, is the ongoing statement that we continue to associate with Christ and his people. Again, it seems a funny form of public association to proclaim in the communion that we are joined together whilst simultaneously making clear on paper, in the church membership records, that we aren't as united as we claim. If we can't assent to the church doctrinal basis or find some problem with the church, how can we proclaim ourselves one with them in communion? If we can assent to the doctrinal basis and we find no problem with the church, why on earth will we not join in membership and then proclaim our oneness through communion after we have made clear our unity in membership?

Communion demands the ability to "discern the body"

Paul's warning to the Corinthian church makes clear that the one eating and drinking judgment upon themselves is the one who fails to "discern the body" (1 Cor 11:27ff). That v29 mentions eating and drinking but only talks of "discerning the body" suggests that Paul is no longer talking about Christ's physical body but the body of believers. There are two ways to take this verse: (1) Paul is saying Christians should act like Christ when they come together; or, (2) Paul is saying we must examine our unity with this local body before we can partake.

On either view, a case can be made for requiring membership. Just as Christ associates with his body, if we are to imitate Christ we ought to associate with his people. Alternatively, on that first view, if Paul's main emphasis is on being selfless and Christlike, rather than selfish, that may have wider applications to building up the body and joining in membership. On the second view, we are pressing similar ideas to points #1 and #2 above. In either case, "discerning the body" must involve knowing the people around us and being involved with them. At the very least, it involves a sense of knowing who is a part of the body and this is usually determined by membership of the local church. Standing outside of the membership makes this command either difficult or nonsensical. 

Communion acts as a membership control

As already noted, baptism is the means of admitting people to the church and communion is the sign of continuing fellowship with the local body. Through these ordinances, the church signifies that it considers those who receive baptism to be saved and those who take the Lord's Supper to be continuing in the faith and in good standing with the fellowship. It is most difficult for the church to affirm these things in those with whom they have no ongoing fellowship. Equally, it is strange (at best) for the church to affirm such things in non-members even where they are regular. 

One primary sign of continuing in the Christian life is ongoing fellowship with God's people. If the church has refused membership to an individual, it is usually because they cannot detect a clear testimony, the person doesn't affirm the doctrinal basis or they are in some open unrepentant sin. In any case, there is a question over that person's spiritual state. Likewise, it says something to the church leadership if an individual is in regular attendance at church but will not commit in membership. It is difficult for the church to affirm continuance in the Christian faith. It is equally hard, if not impossible, for the church to affirm its unity with this person because they will not join in union with the church itself.

Notes

1. In the case of visitors, I would permit those in membership with their home church to partake