On the Ashers Bakery judgment

The Ashers Bakery judgment has been published and the bakers are found to have broken equality legislation. The full judgment is worth reading and can be found here. For a helpful, and relatively brief, summary of why this is an astonishing (if somewhat unsurprising) result see Archbishop Cranmer.

It bears saying that the principle of equal service is a good and valid one. Few would disagree that service ought not to be denied to somebody simply because of their sexual orientation or political beliefs. A bakery that bakes standardised cakes ought not to refuse service to an individual simply because they are homosexual, subscribe to a political party whom the service provider does not or support a campaign the service provider does not/cannot. The Asher case, however, was never about the provision of a standard service being denied to somebody because of their religious or political beliefs. Rather, this was a case of somebody being denied a particular service that would have been denied to anybody else requesting that same identical service.

Rather than offer a summary of the whole case (others have done a better job of that already), I rather want to direct your attention to a handful of rather concerning elements of the judgment itself.

Point 39 of the judgment states the defendants must have known the plaintiff was homosexual and/or associated with homosexual people because of his support for gay marriage, the claim he worked for a small volunteer organisation and the stated graphic on the cake including the word 'QueerSpace'. Certainly there are plenty of heterosexual people that support gay marriage and there is no particular reason for the defendants to have any knowledge of what 'QueerSpace' actually is or does. The presumption of the judge was that this service was denied because the plaintiff was homosexual. However, point 7 of the judgment states quite clearly that the plaintiff 'had previously purchased items at this branch of the 1st Defendant Company'. Were it the case the defendant was denied service because of his homosexuality - which, according to the judge, was 'abundantly clear' - it is virtually impossible to account for the previous provision of service.

Point 41 of the judgment quotes a number of cases that make concerning statements regarding the nature of discrimination. One judgment avers 'discrimination... is something subtle insidious or hidden' while another states motive and purpose have no basis in judgments on discrimination. point 42 then goes on to argue that the necessary comparator is not a heterosexual person purchasing the same cake but a person of undisclosed sexual orientation purchasing a pro-traditional marriage cake. The comparison is laughable. The very cause of discrimination was not the sexual orientation of the person purchasing the cake, which was not known to the defendants and the judgment offers no great evidence they were aware of such orientation, but the message contained on the cake. Equally, even were the judgment correct on this point, it beggars belief that the previous service to this same individual was then not considered as evidence his sexuality had nothing to do with the refusal of service. As the bakery stated throughout, there have been a number of other cakes that were deemed indecent or offensive that they also refused to bake.

Point 43 acknowledges that the bakery 'cancelled the order as they oppose same sex marriage'. It is something of a logical leap to then find, as in Point 46, 'the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff on the ground of his sexual orientation'. The prior service of the plaintiff, the provision of cakes bearing no specific political slogans, speaks against this. Moreover, acknowledging that it is indeed the message to which they object in no way implies discrimination against the individual. It, not implicitly, but explicitly implies a refusal to assert political and/or religious slogans and opinions that the service provider themselves do not hold and cannot in good conscience state.

Points 53-60 seek to establish that the Plaintiff held a political opinion and was discriminated against on these grounds. On balance, I suspect the judge is correct in asserting this is a political opinion and is almost certainly correct that the defendants knew the Plaintiff's political opinion on gay marriage (as per their letter and the specific writing on the cake itself). However, it is patently not the case that the political opinion held by the Plaintiff was the basis of discrimination. The purpose of the legislation is to stop the refusal of a standard service to those who hold specific political opinions. However, it is not the purpose of the legislation to coerce service providers to create material and products that actively promote political beliefs and opinions contrary to those they campaigned against. Again, had the bakery refused to serve the Plaintiff a standard cake simply because he supported gay marriage, this would legitimately fall foul of the law. That they refused to bake a cake bearing a political slogan to which they themselves object and campaigned against ought to be outside the scope of this legislation.

Point 64 of the judgment is, frankly, ludicrous. It states 'if the Plaintiff had ordered a cake with the words "support marriage" or "support heterosexual marriage" I have no doubt such a cake would have been provided. It is the word gay to which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants took exception'. That is patently not true. It is the campaign in favour of gay marriage to which they took exception. Now, whatever one's views on gay marriage, it is surely inappropriate to force anybody to produce materials and products which actively promote a position and/or campaign to which they themselves specifically disagree. For example, would it be right for a homosexual baker to produce a cake saying "no to gay marriage" despite campaigning in favour for it? It strikes me that would be just as unfair as the case we are discussing.

The absurdities of this judgment are not hard to discern. For one, the defendants have been found guilty of refusing to bake a cake which supports a position that is currently unlawful. In other words, they have been found guilty of standing up for the existing law of their province. 

It has also been deemed illegal to not provide services and products which directly contravene the views and opinions of the service provider. Now, service providers are compelled to produce products and provide services in favour of campaigns to which they themselves specifically campaigned against.

Further, Asher's Bakery were found to have discriminated against a legitimate political opinion. Though gay marriage is currently not legal in the province, it is certainly not illegal to hold the view that gay marriage ought to be legalised. Such a judgment, however, means a BNP member who requests a cake from a Jewish baker bearing the slogan "Hitler: the best leader we never had" would be compelled to produce such a product on the grounds that to do otherwise would be to discriminate against a political opinion that is not illegal to hold.

The bakers' religious views were found to be moot in this case. As such, religious believers will be compelled to offer products and services to those who request blasphemous, religiously offensive or religiously unconscionable products. If an EDL supporter (holding a political view) asked a muslim baker to produce a cake with a picture of Mohammad and the caption "false prophet" underneath (a religious view), would they be compelled to make such a cake on the grounds to do so is to discriminate against political opinion?

There is no doubt that most agree political opinion, sexual orientation and religious beliefs should not be a basis for withholding products and services. Such a position was always intended to stop those who supported one political party, were of one particular sexual orientation or religious belief from refusing to provide services to a person of any other. What they were never intended to do was compel people with deeply held beliefs and convictions to provide services and products specifically advocating and promoting views contrary to their own that would involve the suppression of conscience. It does not take a genius to see a distinction between refusal to serve a gay man because he is gay (evidently wrong) and refusal to provide a product bearing a slogan supporting a position which you have spent some time campaigning against. As far as I can tell, Ashers Bakery were seeking that distinction. Their service of the Plaintiff and their refusal to bake a particular product (rather than serve the man at all) speak to this. One can only hope an appeal judge recognises this too.

Grace & Service

Grace is a great Christian truth. It is the means by which we have faith at all (cf. Eph 2:8f) through which we come into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Not only is it the basis of God's saving act toward us, it is also a means to live out the christian life (cf. Rom 5:2; Eph 2:8-10; 1 Pet 5:12). God's effective calling of his children, the means by which he makes us holy, by which we live out our Christian walk, and the basis of how and why He keeps us until the end are all of grace. Little wonder then that Christians are happy to talk about grace. A lot.

However, I have become increasingly convinced that our view of grace can impact in the most direct way on our service for the Lord. If you will forgive the crass terminology (I didn't have anything better to hand), there is a low view of grace (or, cheap grace) and a high view of grace (costly grace). Please don't confuse low and high, cheap and costly, as necessarily indicative of which view is "correct". Both affirm something rightly and deny something wrongly.

The low view of grace rightly affirms that works play no part in salvation or forgiveness. However, it tends toward a form of antinomianism. It establishes grace as the means of forgiveness and then fails to concern itself with individual sin. That is it takes a blasé attitude to sin because, of course, God will just forgive me. It is cheap because in the old analogy - we stand in court, God is the judge and we are unable to pay the fine - this low view treats the price paid by Christ as though it were a mere speeding fine. An inconvenience, for sure, and money we'd rather not pay but hardly an eye-watering sum. Perhaps, to take the analogy further, we may accept we were broke and couldn't pay £60. Yet, it is still only a relatively small price. Thus Christ's forgiveness comes cheaply and easily available.

The high view of grace, by contrast, rightly affirms we are saved from sin and are brought into a relationship with God in order to glorify him. It correctly holds dear the truth that just as God is holy so we are to be holy (1 Pet 1:16). However, it tends toward a form of nomianism (or legalism). It can have a particularly hard attitude to sin as God hates sin and Christ paid such a high price to remove it from us. Grace is, therefore, hard to come by. It is costly because in the old analogy - we stand in court, God is the judge and we are unable to pay the fine - this view treats the price paid by Christ as trillions of pounds that not even the richest man in the world could pay, let alone you or I. Thus forgiveness comes at the highest of costs. To add further sin to the debt is to pile Pelion upon Ossa.

The problem the low view causes for our service is ultimately this. Christ has paid the price for my sin, I am no longer guilty before God and I don't have to continually worry about my standing before him. I don't have to keep working out my righteousness by doing anything. Thus far, thus correct. However, because I am right with God I have no need to prove anything. If I don't fancy serving him I don't have to. If I don't want to do x, y or z for him, so what? I'm forgiven. I don't need to earn my way to Heaven so why bother working hard for the Lord when I don't necessarily fancy it. And, even if I ought to have done something, well, he'll forgive me won't he.

The problem the high view causes for service is this. I'm forgiven and because of what he has done for me, I owe Jesus everything. Thus far, thus correct. However, because I owe Christ so much, I effectively have to pay him back for all he has done for me. Every time I sin, that adds to my debt (which I know he has forgiven and I am no longer liable for it). But every time I do something good, that pays him back in a small way for all he has done for me. Therefore, I must get to every meeting, do all the evangelistic events I can and generally try to do as much good as I can. I can measure my holiness and righteousness by the amount of stuff I do for God. Whilst I know he will forgive me when I sin, I've already got a mountain of debt I owe so I don't want to be adding to that. Though I know I will never (indeed, couldn't) fully pay him back, I'd like to do what I can as best as I'm able.

Both views have hit on some truth to the detriment of an equally important truth. The low view is thoroughly liberating whilst simultaneously dismissing biblical imperatives to pursue holiness and to follow particular commands. It ignores the work of the Spirit in our lives who empowers us to keep God's law. The high view emphasises personal holiness but can lead to a crushing expectation in our spiritual walk. It can also create a two-tier system of believers and super-believers, based on the twin measures of the amount of stuff we do and our personal piety (usually assessed entirely negatively in how much stuff we are willing to shun).

How do we avoid the Scylla of cheap grace and the Charybdis of legalism? The high view primarily errs in presuming we can "pay back" Christ at all. It is not simply that the price he paid was beyond our means, it was that the price he paid was in a currency to which we have no access. No amount of good works will pay him back one penny. Equally, when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us we are clothed in Christ's righteousness. You cannot be more or less righteous, you either are or you aren't righteous at all. If we are in Christ, we have his perfect righteousness. This means there cannot be tiers of believer. Yes, there are those who do more for Christ than others and the scale of our reward in Heaven may differ as a result. But our fundamental righteousness, our standing before God, is a flat platform as our holiness in glory will also be.

The low view errs inasmuch as it treats Christ like an insurance policy. I may aim not to sin but, if I do, it's not the end of the world because Christ will forgive. It equally denies the ongoing work of the Spirit in our hearts. He isn't called the Holy Spirit for nothing. It seems highly unlikely God would put his Holy Spirit into our hearts simply to sit there and care not one jot about our personal holiness. If all true believers receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (and they do), it follows that all true believers would pursue holiness. If we are growing in holiness, it follows that such will have a clear a noticeable outworking in our lives and in our service. Though our service is no payback scheme, nor does it earn us righteousness, it does please the Father (as Kevin DeYoung points out here). 

At heart, grace is the means by which we are saved. It is the means by which we receive Christ's righteousness. Yet, it is also the means by which God empowers his children to live lives that are generally pleasing to him. When talking grace, it's always worth keeping these two truths together.

On the "stand up and greet time"

Thom Rainer recently produced a post on the top ten ways to drive guests from your church. He followed this up with a post here, after a slew of comments in relation to his inclusion of "having a stand up and greet time" in his original article. Tim Challies has responded to this with his own article: How I learned to Embrace the Stand and Greet Time. The following is my two-penneth.

In his original article, Thom Rainer highlights the extreme revulsion many guests have to the stand up and greet time in the service. His follow up article makes clear that many have, not only refused to come back to the church after such trauma, but left mid-service as a result. 

In his response, Tim Challies honestly admits that he too finds it awkward and difficult. However, he argues in favour of a stand up and greet time, basing this on two key arguments. Firstly, he wants to argue church is not all about me and my comfort. Sometimes we have to do things that are uncomfortable in order for the church to fulfil its function. Secondly, he argues church is for the believer. Though unbelievers should factor in what we do, he says, their comfort shouldn't take precedence. It is what builds up the believer that should be paramount.

So, what do these various articles present us with? Each makes valid points. When we work through them, we are left with three basic facts: (1) visitors - believers and unbelievers alike - despise stand up and greet times and will not return to a church if one exists; (2) church members should not make the church about their own preferences and comfort; (3) what happens in the church exists primarily to build up believers.

The question that remains is whether there is some way to hold these facts in tension. Some of us, I suspect, would be tempted to drop one of the assertions at this point. Most likely, if that's our solution, we either deny the problem of (1) or we reject the assertion in (3). Personally, I subscribe to all three statements but I believe there is a simple solution.

Firstly, although (2) is undeniably correct, it rather misses the point. (2) is only relevant to the discussion if stand up and greet times (a) actively build up the church membership and (b) that what goes on in the church only exists to build up believers. As such, though (2) could be relevant to the discussion, it is only relevant once we have determined (a) and (b).

At this point, we must address (3). It is certainly true that what happens within the church is primarily for the upbuilding of the membership. However, that does not mean the upbuilding of the membership is the only priority of the church. Indeed, if the church is concerned with mission, how we relate to those outside (especially if they have been brave enough to cross the threshold into a foreign church culture) is surely more than a footnote on our service. It is certainly true, the comfort of the unbeliever isn't paramount. Were it, there would likely be no real preaching of the gospel. But that isn't to say their comfort doesn't matter at all and we should ride roughshod over it because one element - indeed, one pretty small element - of the service might benefit believers but make unbelievers uncomfortable in the process.

That leads on to our answer to (a) - does a stand up and greet time actively build up the membership anyway? The sheer number of believing respondents - those who are sympathetic to the church - who seem to loathe stand up and greet times would suggest not. What is the purpose of the stand up and greet time? If it is to be welcoming - yet makes everyone uncomfortable - then it seems to have failed. If it is to build up believers, one is unclear how a forced handshake and contrived greeting (or, in worse cases, hugs and literal renderings of "holy kiss") do anything of the sort. It also begs the question what the point of being greeted at the door (and, in some cases, over coffee pre-service by several others) if we're all going to be forced to do it again mid-service.

On top of all this, there is a point that appears to have been missed in discussion. Are there any ways of welcoming unbelievers, building up believers and encouraging church members to look outside of themselves without making everyone uncomfortable or compromising the purposes of the church? It strikes me there are plenty of ways to do this. 

Most churches do this over tea and coffee before or after the service and train their members in how to welcome guests. Not only does this achieve the same purpose as the stand up and greet time, it actually exceeds it. The greeting (both the timing and the nature of it) are not contrived and forced. It means visitors are not "on display" when being welcomed and are not pushed into meangingless conversations they (nor the other participant) particularly want. It also means church members are built up all the more. Shaking hands and smiling politely at a brother or sister at an enforced point mid-service does not build up in nearly the same way as an intentional approach for a genuine conversation that was taken by choice.

So can we hold all three comments in tension. Yes, I think we can. Though church is primarily for the building up of believers, if believers are rarely built up by a stand up and greet time, it is not doing anything to achieve that purpose. Though visitors hate stand up and greet times, if it does little to build up many believers it seems perverse to insist upon it when neither the church nor the visitors gain from it. Though church members are supposed to look outside of their own comfort in order to build up the church, that doesn't mean we must persist with uncomfortable things simply because they are uncomfortable. Members need only be pushed outside their comfort zone when their comfort is stopping them doing something scripture suggests they should, or should not, do. If there is a way to build up other believers that makes us uncomfortable, we should certainly do that. However, it seems stand up and greet times are not one of them.

Church can build up believers without stand up and greet times. Visitors will feel more welcome without a stand up and greet time. Church members can be encouraged to build up the body over and against their own preferences without a stand up and greet time. Given all that, I'm unsure what is to be lost if we simply canned the practice. There seems to be much to gain by dropping it.

Six reasons to pursue fellowship, community and hospitality

Yesterday, I posted here on the cost of community, hospitality and fellowship. It's important we understand what true fellowship, real community and genuine hospitality look like if we are to have any hope of actually pursuing them. But, having done that, it seems worth giving some reasons why community, hospitality and fellowship are vitally important (despite the cost to ourselves). So, here are a few:

Jesus commanded it
It's always the natural place to start whenever we ask ourselves why we ought to do anything. Jesus commanded us to engage in fellowship, community and hospitality. In John 13:34f, he tells us the sign that we are truly believers is that we love one another as he loved us. Without spending time together, just as Jesus spent time with his disciples, we are going to struggle to do this. The Lord's command should be reason enough for us to do this.

Jesus modelled it
Jesus did much of his ministry in homes over meals. He reaches out to unbelievers this way and he trained his disciples this way too. The Last Supper and the feeding of the 5000 is recorded in all four gospels, Jesus meal with Levi is found in all but John's gospel and the feeding of the 4000 is in Matthew and Mark's gospel. That's four meals in thirteen passages. Add to that the meal at the houses of Pharisees (Luke 11:37-54 and 14:1-24), the meal with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), and the meal that followed Jesus’ resurrection appearance on the Emmaus Road (Luke 24:13-34). Even then, the list of meals is not complete. Nevertheless, it is clear that Jesus saw fellowship, hospitality and eating together as vital to ministry. If, as John says, we are to "walk in the same way in which he walked" (1 John 2:6) that must include this form of fellowship and community.

The Early Church did it
We read in Acts 2:42-47 that the Early Church were devoted to fellowship and hospitality. The passage outlines precisely what their fellowship entailed: studying the word, praying together, eating together and spending time with one another in homes. Such hospitality and fellowship is pressed by Paul (Rom 12:13), Peter (1 Pet 4:8-9) and the writer of Hebrews (Heb 13:1-2) as well as being a central part of the criteria for church leadership (1 Tim 3:2; Ti 1:8).

It will make your joy complete
The apostle John speaks plenty about fellowship. In particular, his comments in 1 John 1:3-4 and 2 John 1:12 link our fellowship to our joy. In 2 John, the apostle is clear enough that his joy would be complete when he is able to physically spend some time with the people to whom he is writing. It doesn't take much to note that his presence with them, engaging in real fellowship, will complete his joy in a way that a long-distance relationship simply can't. In 1 John, his comments are even more surprising. He says "we are writing these things to you so that our joy may be complete" (my emphasis). Immediately prior to this comment, he says the reason they are proclaiming their message is "so that you too may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:3). So, John's joy will only be complete when he can truly enjoy the fellowship of these other believers. There is something special when we engage in true, genuine fellowship between believers.

It makes church discipline meaningful
It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people who profess belief will fall into sin. It is an even worse fact that some who profess faith within the church may not even be believers (cf. 2 Pet 2:1). Scripture tells us not to be surprised by such things but to be on our guard and swift to act when they become apparent. One such example of dealing with a serious disciplinary matter in the church is outlined in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul's clear guidelines for dealing with believers in open sin (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-2 & 9-13) make absolutely no sense if we have not already pursued, and enacted, true fellowship like this. If we never spend time together, eat together or share life together Paul's sanctions in 1 Corinthians 5 suddenly look totally toothless.

It will aid your growth
If Ephesians 4:11-16 is teaching anything, it is talking about how the church will grow its members. Principally, it is through the exercise of various gifts for the mutual upbuilding of the body. Certainly such cannot exist without a framework of fellowship and community. But, note also that Paul says as we speak "truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ". Again, it is incredibly hard to grow together and to speak truth into one another's lives without close fellowship and community. What opportunities are there to do this otherwise? Paul makes this same point in reverse in 2 Thessalonians 1:3 as does Peter in 2 Pet 1:5-8. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between our love, and fellowship with, one another and our growth in faith. As the one increases, so does the other.

4 ways community, fellowship and hospitality will cost us

We talk an awful lot about community, fellowship, hospitality and friendship in our church. In truth, there is no pretending that fostering genuine community - and all that goes with it - is easy. It takes work and it will cost us in one way or another. Here are a bunch of ways it will do exactly that:

Time
Community, fellowship and hospitality will cost us time. There is no getting away from the fact that we call it "spending time together" for a reason. It costs. For most people, time is a precious commodity and we all feel we need more of it. "I'm too busy" is the mantra and can usually be read as "I'm too busy for you". True fellowship requires investment in relationships. It demands our time and, if we are to have it, we must make time for it. Even on a basic level it requires time cooking for people, cleaning up after people, doing favours for people, helping people, listening to people, sharing with people. If we're not willing to invest time, we're not really willing to have fellowship.

Money
Community, fellowship and hospitality will cost us money. When we have people in our homes, we will have to spend money on extra food. We may have to run the heating for the comfort of other people (rather than for the thickness of our wallets). It may cost us money in petrol, ferrying people around here, there and everywhere. It may cost us money when we see friends in need and conclude 1 John 3:17 demands we actually help (rather than do a lot of talking about helping). Real fellowship demands our money. If our wallets are not in it, then we are not really in it at all.

Things
Community, fellowship and hospitality may cost us our things. When we have people in our homes, they may not look after things in the way we would like. We may have expensive furniture that people slouch on, drop food over and spill drinks on. We may have carpets that get worn, or stained, quicker than we might like. Things may get damaged because - as we all know - most people don't care about your things the way you do. Yet, God has given you all those things to enjoy and it is right to share them with others, just as Christ shares the blessings that are his with his people (even though we don't care for them as he does!) It is not terribly warm, friendly or hospitable to give people a list of items they are not touch or go near. To act that way is to treat them as children; it makes your hospitality something closer to patronage. If your things aren't included in your hospitality, then you're not really being all that hospitable.

Emotional energy
Community, fellowship and hospitality will cost us emotional energy. We may be happy to share our things, our time and our money but if we are not emotionally invested we aren't really engaging in proper fellowship. We cannot expect anyone to open up to us if we never open up ourselves. It is a thoroughly vulnerable position to be in - opening ourselves up to scrutiny and judgment - but unless we do so, we cannot expect anyone to make themselves so vulnerable with us. How can we expect people to confess their sin (and grow by putting away with the support of the church) if we continually make out we are perfect? When people are struggling, our emotions must be engaged otherwise we are not really all that concerned. Now, doing that is emotionally draining and tiring. Yet, if our hospitality and fellowship doesn't extend to our emotions, we may as well be hosting business networking events.

Ministries essential to the church: when no ministry might be better

What ministries and roles are so fundamentally important to the church that, were we to do away with them, it would cease to function?

Our church recently held a conference titled 'Serving without Sinking', based on the book of the same name. John Hindley, author of that book and founder of Grace Church Manchester, spoke helpfully on our motivations for serving Christ.

Many good things were said but two particularly stuck with me:

1. There are usually fewer ministries necessary for the life of the church than we think. There may be good ministry opportunities, and many excellent things to do, but Jesus managed perfectly well before they existed and doesn't insist they continue come what may
2. Perhaps it is better to have no ministry at all than one that badly reflects Christ. For example, it may be better to have no children's work than one that reflects Christ falsely through the motivations and actions of those serving

John suggested the areas of service necessary for your church to function: (1) someone to open up the building; (2) someone to preach. Other things, it was suggested, may be good and have their place but are not fundamentally essential.

If that is the case, are we better placed to strip away all extraneous areas of service - singing, children's work, etc - until there exist people whose motivations for serving Christ are right and who will, through those acts of service, properly represent Jesus? Are we best to stop certain activities until those running them serve based on their love for God and that of other believers? 

What is better: to have unsuitable individuals serving in the church - non-members, divisive individuals, those who make service about themselves, etc - or simply to have no non-essential ministries until suitable individuals are able to serve gladly, willingly and properly?

Need may be a good motivator for service but if that is our only consideration perhaps our service will do more damage to the cause of Christ.

Where two or more are gathered

"...if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” - Matthew 18:19f. (ESV)

It is not at all uncommon to hear the above verses mentioned as an encouragement to small local churches. If Christ is present when only two or three gather together in his name, so the argument goes, we can be assured Jesus is with us in a special way despite our small number. Alternatively, these verses may be used to encourage small prayer meetings or as a spur to others to be more active in corporate prayer. The reasoning is thus: you are missing out on the special presence of Jesus when you don't come to the prayer meeting. Those who are there will experience Jesus' presence in a different and special way compared to one's personal prayer-time.

In an altogether more noxious and abusive way, some have distorted v19 to such an extent they offer to “join their faith with yours” or “agree with you in faith” so that we can demand whatever we want from the Lord. When "two of you agree on earth", they reason, God is duty bound to grant us all the selfish desires of our heart because of these verses.

To be honest, leaving aside the pernicious abuses of v19, the common misreadings of v20 are not particularly dangerous. In truth, I have stood up and (erroneously) made such comments myself. However, such a reading is to miss the point of the passage altogether.

A brief glance at the context makes clear Jesus is speaking of church discipline; namely, how to deal with a believer (or supposed believer) in sin. Most people agree that vv15-17 outline the subsequent steps in proper church discipline. Verse 18 then says "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". This is Jesus giving the church immense authority. In other words, when church discipline is enacted properly, upon biblical grounds, God himself approves the decision and it is binding in his eyes.

This then brings us to our verses in question. Verse 19 is a restatement of the promise in v18, as indicated by the word 'again'. Where two or three agree - on biblical grounds - concerning church discipline, God ratifies and agrees with the decision. Verse 20 is a logical extension of the statement in v19. Namely, where church discipline has been enacted properly, God agrees with, and ratifies, the decision whilst Jesus guides (by his Spirit) and validates it. In other words, when the church enacts discipline properly, upon biblical grounds, it is as though Christ himself has delivered the verdict. 

There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that when two Christians get together in Jesus' name, he is somehow more present than when they are apart. Indeed, Jesus himself says in Mt. 28:20 "I am with you always, to the end of the age", despite his imminent going away. This is surely best explained by reference to the nature of the trinity i.e. Jesus is forever with us by the Spirit he gives us. How can the Spirit be any more present with us when he has taken up residence in our hearts?

Why, then, do so many Christians try to divorce this text from its immediate context? As I said, I have been guilty of this error. Despite my having delivered an otherwise accurate exegesis of the passage (as far as I'm currently aware), and even having noted the immediate context and application of vv19-20 correctly, I still insisted on the special presence of Christ in the gathered meeting of the church. For me, it was simply sloppy exegesis prompted by tradition - I had always been fed the line and it worked its way into my application. 

Perhaps for others it is what seems to be a "nice thought". The view seems good - Christ is present when believers meet ergo this is a good spur to not forsake meeting together. Sadly, nice though the thought may be, it ignores Christ's ongoing presence with us and rides roughshod over the obvious context.

Whatever the reason - and some of them are laudable, no doubt - we probably err to suggest these verses relate specifically to the gathered meeting of believers.

*Reformed blogger, Tim Challies, made much the same argument in reference to these verses c. 10 years ago. His article can be accessed here.

Could you go on a beach mission this year?

United Beach Missions (UBM) work in Britain, Ireland and Continental Europe to take the good news of Jesus Christ to those who would otherwise never hear it. For many of the people we meet, UBM is their first and only encounter with the gospel.

The missions have been up and running for 4 weeks and we have already heard of at least 3 people who have trusted the Lord through this work. We expect to hear of many more over the course of the summer.

UBM wouldn't be able to operate without team members. The organisation require c. 1000 volunteers to man around 90 weeks of mission throughout the summer. This year, bookings have been down and many of the missions are in need of support.

Anyone who has trusted Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, and believes the Bible to be the word of God, the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct is welcome to apply. Previous experience or special abilities are not necessary. There is a place on a Beach Team no matter what your previous experience has been.

Clearly, as even just the early weeks of missions this year have shown, UBM really does work. Ask yourself, could you be a part of it? Could you give just one week this year and take the gospel to those who sorely need to hear it?

For more information visit http://www.ubm.org.uk.

Two interesting posts on approaching ministry

Here are two interesting posts on approaches to ministry.

The first, accessible here, deals with the issue of using ministry as a means of personal fulfilment. I have touched upon this here, specifically in respect to those of us trying to find ministry opportunities. However, the post to which I have linked deals with this same underlying issue but in relation to its dangers once we have undertaken a specific ministerial role.

The second, accessible here, deals with issues related to ministry and church planting. Specifically, it discusses the importance of having a sound hermeneutic by which we can successfully handle scripture. It offers a warning that although our theological conclusions may be true, predominantly because those to whom we have aligned ourselves are sound, without a good hermeneutical base our theological inclinations can change as quickly as our ephemeral infatuations with big personalities and we stand little chance of training up others to handle the word effectively.

Both helpful posts and worth a moment of your time.

Why should we bother with prayer?

If prayer is merely 'talking to God', what are we hoping to communicate to Him that he doesn't already know? If God has a pre-ordained plan, what are we hoping to achieve when we ask him to divert from his deterministic designs? Are we hoping to change the mind of, or communicate something unknown to, a sovereign, almighty God?

In the first instance, we should not overlook the fact that prayer is commanded in scripture. 1 Thessalonians 5:17, amongst other verses, make clear that God commands us to pray to Him. So, on one level, we should bother with prayer because God commands us to pray. However, whilst this asserts why we ought to pray it doesn't explain why God wants us to pray in the first place. The real question revolves around why a sovereign God commands us to pray when he already knows our thoughts and is in control of everything.

We can glean from Daniel 4:35, Proverbs 19:21, Ephesians 1:11, et al that God is sovereign and in control of everything. Rather than causing us to ask why we should bother with prayer these verses should give us real encouragement to engage in prayer. For, if God is not sovereign, what point is there in asking him to do anything when it is likely beyond his power? It is specifically because God has the power to change events and human hearts that prayer is of any value at all. 

Nevertheless, although the sovereignty of God should cause us to see value in prayer, we are still led back to the original question. If God is in control and works everything ‘according to the counsel of his good will’, why bother bringing anything to Him when he will do as he wills anyway? What exactly are we hoping to achieve through prayer?

In 2 Corinthians 1:10-11, Paul speaks about prayer in a rather unexpected way. He appears to suggest that God's divine will is specifically fulfilled as a result of 'the prayers of many'. Thomas Aquinas picks up this theme in Summa Theologiæ and argues "we do not pray in order to change the decree of divine providence, rather we pray in order to acquire by petitionary prayer what God has determined would be obtained by our prayers". In short, when we pray it is because God, in his sovereignty, has moved us to pray. When our prayers are granted it is because God willed us to pray and, through our prayers, he willed to work.

Although God can, and will, bring about his purposes by his own strength, he has stated the way in which he wants those purposes to to be worked out. God wants to work out his purposes through the prayers of his people. Indeed, this is part of God's rich grace toward us. He can save whomever he wants, heal whomever he wants and bring about whatever events he wants without interference yet God, in his grace, actively includes us in his plan by making prayer the means by which he brings about his divine purposes. When we pray, we are actively - rather than passively or deterministically - participating in God's divine plan. God wills us to pray and, through our prayers, he is pleased to work. 

Our prayers are the means by which God works out his plans and purposes. We are active participants in God's plan when we pray. By his grace, we are included and associated in the working out of his sovereign and perfect plan - we play an active part in all that God decrees is good - when we pray.

This same truth is why we should engage in evangelism and mission. Yes, the Lord commanded us to do it; and yes, God is sovereign and can save whomever he wills without our help. However, God has determined the way he wants to draw people to himself and enlarge his kingdom. He calls us to evangelise and engage in mission because he wants to graciously include us in his plan of salvation. We are associated with the ultimate good of bringing people to a knowledge of Christ, to a position where they can glorify God and enjoy him forever, when we engage in evangelism and the Lord chooses to work through us.

When a child helps their parent bake a cake, the work may take longer and there may be more mess in the kitchen, but there can be no doubt the child most definitely helped. Though it would be easier to do it themselves, in allowing the child to help, a parent gives a sense of ownership of the task to the child and allows them to learn something otherwise unattainable. Similarly, although the Lord could do it faster and with less mess without our help, just like the child in the kitchen, he graciously allows us to be part of his perfect plan. We can lay claim to active involvement in God's plan because we, albeit in our small and clumsy way, most definitely helped. We are given an opportunity to grow in ways that would be utterly unattainable were God to enact his plan without reference to us. 

Prayer and evangelism are God's most gracious ways of actively including us in his plan and are a significant source of growth in the Christian life. Our question should not be 'why should I bother?' but rather 'why would I not?'.

Must I have a heart for particular people before I can reach them?

It is a common enough objection to engaging in evangelistic outreach - "I don't really have a heart for that" or "that's not where my heart is". So, it seems a valid question to ask whether we need a specific "heart" for particular peoples and geographical areas before we can engage in evangelism?

In short, scripture speaks against this idea of requiring a heart for the work. Notably, Jesus did not caveat the great commission so it reads "go and make disciples of all those for whom you have a heart... those you particularly like". Rather, it reads "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 (Mt 28:19, ESV)". Significantly, Jesus continues and says "teaching them [those of whom you make disciples] to observe all that I have commanded you (Mt 28:20a, ESV)", which presumably includes this bit about going into all the world and making disciples. There was certainly no sense from Jesus that the apostles had to figure out for whom they had a real heart and to focus their attentions solely on them - they were told quite directly to reach all nations.

The book of Jonah frames this issue in an alternative way. The Lord commanded this prophet to go to Nineveh and, we can safely conclude from his response, Jonah did not have a heart for these people (Jon 1:3-16). In fact, Jonah so despised the people of Nineveh that he was prepared to die rather than reach them with God's message (Jon 1:12). Having been humbled by God and eventually taken the Lord's message of judgement to this city, Jonah is apoplectic when God relents at seeing Nineveh turn from its sin (Jon 4:1-3). Far worse than not "having a heart" for these people, Jonah wanted the city of Nineveh to be destroyed. He specifically did not want to take the Lord's message to them because he knew God was gracious and would relent from disaster were the people to repent. It is interesting that God saved a whole city despite the messenger holding the people in contempt and actively hoping for their destruction. It appears God can, and will, work even when our hearts are not really in it.

So, do we need a specific "heart" for peoples and areas before we can engage in reaching them? Scripture doesn't make this a caveat for evangelism. In fact, the Bible suggests we should reach whomever we have the ability to reach. Paul was clear about where his focus lay. He says:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings (1 Cor 9:19-23).

Therefore, where opportunities are granted to us to share the gospel the question of whether we have "a heart" for the area or people should be moot. We should all have a heart for the lost, whomever they may be, because the Lord has a heart for them (2 Pet 3:9), just as he had a heart for us when he died to save us (Rom 5:8).