Heaven Tourism is bunk & how we can be sure if God is speaking

I was delighted to read that LifeWay, a major Christian bookseller, has taken the decision to no longer stock books that come under the genre of Heaven Tourism. You can find out about why here.

As pointed out here and here, there is really only one reason why Heaven Tourism books keep being published. Money. There is a great demand for them and Christian publishers often make a calculated decision to stock them.

So, if you are offered a copy (or tempted to buy one), here are a few reasons to reject as nonsense any book claiming insight into Heaven from the perspective of one who has been and come back.

The Bible says it is made up

"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." - John 1:18

"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." - John 3:13

"it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" - Hebrews 9:27

Although the Bible clearly shows that some people had visions of Heaven, there are no examples in the entire corpus of biblical writing detailing anybody having gone to Heaven and come back. The above verses make clear that the Bible gives no room for anybody to go to Heaven and come back. 

God has been pretty clear in his word. Apart from Christ, nobody has seen God fully and nobody has been in his full and direct presence, and come back to Earth to tell the tale. If we accept the word of these Heaven Tourism books, we effectively say God is lying to us.

The accounts are not consistent with Biblical teaching on Heaven

There are only four biblical writers who record visions of Heaven (Isaiah and Ezekiel in the OT; Paul and John in the NT). Of those four, only three tell us what they saw. In each case, the focus is on the glory of God (Isaiah 6:1–4; Ezekiel 1, 10; Revelation 4–6). Similarly, in each case the reaction to God's glory is fear and shame.

Contrast these accounts with the jejune and mundane accounts we are given in Heavenly Tourism books (things like picnics, games, juvenile attractions, familiar faces, odd conversations, and so on). Note the reactions of the individuals to the events happening around them; to being in the very presence of holy, almighty God.

Beyond this, as Tim Challies points out, "Those who have a biblical understanding of life and death and heaven and hell will know that for a person to die and visit heaven, to experience sinlessness and the presence of Jesus Christ—for that person it would be the very height of cruelty to then demand that they return to earth."


These accounts call us away from scripture & bring dishonour to God

Not only do these accounts not tally with what scripture actually says, they call us away from scripture altogether. They encourage us to take the word of a man (or child) over and above the word of God. They don't simply lead us to call God a liar if we accept them, they lead us to dishonour God altogether.

Jesus says "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). Our hope is not in the word of a child, a doctor, a minister or anyone else who claims to have been to Heaven. Our hope is in the words and person of Jesus Christ as revealed by God in his word. Faith is believing in the word of God as true and without error. To then be convinced of the reality of Heaven based upon these Heaven Tourism books is to say you need more proof than God has given. It is to say the Bible is not sufficient for matters of faith, that God has not given us enough to warrant belief in him. Again, Tim Challies rightly says "you dishonor God if you choose to believe what the Bible says only when you receive some kind of outside verification."

These accounts are obviously falsified

The Bible insists such accounts cannot be true, they do not accord with biblical visions of Heaven nor of biblical teaching about Heaven and they draw us away from God's prescribed method of revealing himself to people. All of that should be cause enough for us to recognise these accounts are certainly not reliable. It is reason enough to consider them to be falsified (whether purposefully or not).

But if that's not enough, then consider the fact that some of these accounts have been recanted by those who wrote them. Alex Malarkey, co-author of The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven, has since claimed he made up the whole story (see here, here and here amongst others). Malarkey makes clear he did not die and he never visited Heaven. In fact, he made it up because he thought it would garner him some attention.

Such things are not limited to Heaven Tourism books. The Christian world is replete with stories of children (and adults, to be fair) making professions of faith, seeking baptism, giving testimony of how God has spoken to them for a variety of reasons despite none of it being true. Sometimes it is attention seeking, other times to fit in with what others do around them or it could simply be to please a dominant person/voice in their life. 

We are wont to believe people at face value without ever seeking to ask the serious, and necessary, questions we must. Does God speak today? Yes he does. Does that mean we cannot question any person who claims "the Lord said to me..."? Absolutely not. 

The Lord most usually speaks through his word. Even there we need to be careful that we have understood and applied it correctly. Anybody bringing testimony apart from the Bible must surely be held to a higher standard still. That is not to say such testimony cannot be true but it is to say we cannot be sure it is true unless it is verifiable and closely tied to scripture itself.

In Tim Keller's book Prayer he offers this story that illustrates the point well:

If we leave the Bible out, we may plumb our impressions and feelings and imagine God saying various things to us, but how can we be sure we are not self-deceived? The eighteenth-century Anglican clergyman George Whitefield was one of the spearheads of the Great Awakening, a period of massive renewal of interest in Christianity across Western societies and a time of significant church growth. Whitefield was a riveting orator and is considered one of the greatest preachers in church history. In late 1743 his first child, a son, was born to he and his wife, Elizabeth. Whitefield had a strong impression that God was telling him the child would grow up to also be a “preacher of the everlasting Gospel.” In view of this divine assurance, he gave his son the name John, after John the Baptist, whose mother was also named Elizabeth. When John Whitefield was born, George baptized his son before a large crowd and preached a sermon on the great works that God would do through his son. He knew that cynics were sneering at his prophecies, but he ignored them.

Then, at just four months old, his son died suddenly of a seizure. The Whitefields were of course grief-stricken, but George was particularly convicted about how wrong he had been to count his inward impulses and intuitions as being essentially equal to God’s Word. He realized he had led his congregation into the same disillusioning mistake. Whitefield had interpreted his own feelings—his understandable and powerful fatherly pride and joy in his son, and his hopes for him—as God speaking to his heart. Not long afterward, he wrote a wrenching prayer for himself, that God would “render this mistaken parent more cautious, more sober-minded, more experienced in Satan’s devices, and consequently more useful in his future labors to the church of God.”  

The lesson here is not that God never guides our thoughts or prompts us to choose wise courses of action, but that we cannot be sure he is speaking to us unless we read it in the Scripture.

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.

On idols

Some time ago, I posted here regarding the difference between the first and second commandments. I argued that idolatry is best understood as anything that changes, obscures or alters the true character, or nature, of God.

It is worth noting that the incident of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 was not an exercise in worshiping a false god per se. The people said "This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt!" (Neh 9:18) and simultaneously dedicated the following day "a feast to the LORD" (Ex 32:5). The people were not attempting to worship another god. Rather, they had changed the character and nature of the true God so that they were, in fact, worshiping a false image. The list of idolatrous behaviours in Col 3:5 is such because, as Christians, we are called to be Christlike and pursue godliness. In indulging such behaviour, we suggest God's character is in line with these things. We change God's character and worship a false image.

Now, it wouldn't be false to say those things that vie for our affections are idols. If we suggest the key to our happiness and fulfillment lie anywhere other than in God, we may not put these things before God but we certainly fall foul of the second commandment. In effect, we suggest God cannot, or will not, meet our particular need and thus we change his character and obscure his nature. If we put this false image before God, we would then fall foul of the first and second commandments simultaneously. Yet, those things that vie for our affections, and by which we suggest God will not meet our needs, are modern day idols. They may not be before God but they are nonetheless gods we worship and seek as a means of fulfilling particular needs.

What is worth bearing in mind is that an idol is only an idol so long as we treat it like an idol. If Paul's comments in 1 Cor 8:4-6 and 1 Cor 10:19f teach anything, it is that idols are nothing. They are either lumps of clay, pieces of wood, bits of stone, moulded metal or conceptual ideas. What they are not is gods.

This is an issue with which many people tie themselves in knots. I have a bust of C.H. Spurgeon on my office desk. Most people rightly conclude this is not an idol - I don't worship it, I don't find any fulfillment in it and I don't believe, nor act, in any way to suggest it is a god. Now, suppose it wasn't C.H. Spurgeon but was one of those Buddha statues, or one of those Hindu deities. Presuming I treat it the same way as my Spurgeon bust, are these any more idols to me?

We may want to have a discussion about the wisdom of associating yourself, as a Christian, with the idolatrous statues of false religion. It may not be helpful to people coming into your home and may lead to all sorts of conversations that are not particularly profitable. However, Paul is clear, in and of themselves, they are nothing and have no power.

I knew somebody who was given a Hindu statue by a colleague (it was a genuine gift in an attempt to be thoughtful). They concluded it would be wrong to smash it to bits, or throw it in the bin, in front of their colleague. I think they were right. In fact, I think - partly because they decided it wouldn't be helpful to display and partly because it was so grotesque - to shove it in the garage out of the way. Did they invite evil into their home? I don't think so. Did they engage in idolatry? I don't see how. Were they sinful to have this thing in the house? No. Paul is quite clear idols are nothing. They have no power. They are simply lumps of clay, wood, stone or metal. It would certainly be wrong to worship these things but an idol is only an idol so long as you treat it like an idol.

If you believe these statues have some sort of power, if you think you are inviting evil into your home by keeping one (perhaps having been given it), ironically you are being idolatrous. You are investing into a lump of material the characteristics of God. You are making out that something God says is nothing is actually really powerful. 

Again, we may want to have a discussion about the wisdom of associating yourself with such things. But that is not a sin issue. That is not an issue of idol worship. It is purely a matter of sensitivity and that which is helpful to others in the gospel.

Home ownership is not the summum bonum

I am far from often in agreement with the Archbishop Cranmer blog. I do not share his unerring veneration of Margaret Thatcher, I am not perturbed by state intervention in principle and I am not slavishly tied to supporting "the market" come what may. However, despite the hagiographic title, his most recent post touches on a fundamental issue and, in the main, handles it well. The post - 'Margaret Thatcher "gave the Conservative Party intelligence and committed leadership"' - deals with home ownership and the current government's flawed attempts to boost the economy through a specific focus on the housing market.

I first touched upon the issue of home ownership back in March 2010. Here, I sought to explore pertinent issues related to whether Christians could, or should, justifiably own property. To be clear, I am not against Christian home ownership per se. However, I do think many Christians have failed to think clearly about the issues surrounding home ownership and a particularly worldly approach to property has infiltrated the church on some level. Again, that is not to say owning property is wrong per se. Nevertheless, our attitude toward home ownership may have been unduly influenced by our culture.

Cranmer's central argument concerns the government's current Help to Buy scheme. He states:

The Bishop of Manchester-designate, David Walker, said: “Help to Buy is like tackling a food shortage by issuing food vouchers rather than getting more crops planted”. And he is quite right. If any shift were needed, it is either in increasing the building of social housing or in dispelling the shame associated with renting. The Royal Family rents; the Archbishop of Canterbury rents. What is this Tory fixation with owning that which the market determines you cannot yet afford?

With this assertion, I wholeheartedly agree. Cranmer's view of this policy is ultimately correct when he argues:

It is difficult to conceive of a more peccable policy than one which lures you into a state of maximum indebtedness at a punitive rate of interest, especially when debts of such gargantuan proportions built on the shifting sand of inflated property prices were largely responsible for the global credit crunch and the state we’re in. This time, instead of financial institutions selling on the risk of sub-prime mortgages to an ever-cascading carousel of private banks, the taxpayer will act as guarantor of last resort. 

As with the bank bailouts, the shareholder (homeowner) takes the profit in times of plenty, but the poor taxpayer takes the hit in the lean years. It is even more invidious when you consider that those who take out these 95% loans will be subject to a higher rate of interest than those who are deemed to present less of a risk: the repayments will be arduous and the emotional costs very high. This is simply piling Pelion upon Ossa. At these thresholds, the ‘dream of home ownership’ can rapidly become a nightmare trap of negative equity and unsalability: the Englishman’s castle becomes his dungeon. House prices are not guaranteed to go on rising in perpetuity: the easier-credit bubble will surely burst, just as it has always done.

On all this, I agree with Cranmer.

However, it is difficult to support his view that Margaret Thatcher understood this issue well given that he ignores the fact she was centrally responsible for creating this very shame culture. For Thatcher, as with most Conservatives, home ownership represents the highest good whilst renting is for failures, identifiable principally by their lack of earnings and/or savings. Just as Thatcher responded with the words "what a luxury" having asked a student studying Ancient Norse Literature what she was reading at university, the Conservative mindset on home ownership is to justify all things in terms of money. That is, things are only of value if they can be quantified monetarily. Thus, if you do not have enough money to own property you must be of no value, a failure, because achievement is measured in monetary terms both in education (the earning power of your degree is its sole value) and in terms of income (you are of no value if you fail to earn). Indeed, Cranmer argues well that the central shift needed is "in increasing the building of social housing". However, he says this without irony having stated "Margaret Thatcher heralded a revolution in the property-owning democracy with the sale of council homes to tenants".

Underlying this whole argument is the understanding that all people need to live somewhere. The rental market is awash with private landlords covering the cost of second mortgages through the rents of those who cannot afford to buy their first home. Property prices have risen well beyond the rate of rising salaries and the average age of the first-time buyer is steadily increasing. The government's answer to this problem is to loan people a deposit, which must be returned, on a 95% mortgage with unfavourable terms in order to allow property prices to rise even further. A far more simple solution would seem to be the building of more houses, flooding the market with property which would naturally drive prices down. Sadly, successive Tory and Labour governments have singularly failed to build enough housing (social or private). Prices remain high because demand exceeds availability and the government answer, not by increasing house building projects but, by plunging would-be home-owners into ever increasing levels of debt in order to achieve the only thing assumed to be of any value - owning a home. Certainly the Bible has much to say about where we plough our money, the storing up of treasures and the placing of people into debt. 

In truth, we need to move away from the view that property ownership is the ultimate good. We do need to increase social housing - a problem exacerbated by the sale of council housing - but we also need to increase the number of private homes being built too. Moreover, we need to move away from any concept of shame in renting and value inherent in home ownership. Why should housing not be treated in the same way as any other good? Why is a house about the only piece of property to increase in value in perpetuity when almost every other depreciates? This culture - seen almost nowhere else in Europe - causes people to take themselves into untold debt in order to own property they cannot afford whilst simultaneously reducing their living standard and impeding their ability to move freely. At heart, the question we are left with is 'are mere bricks and mortar really worth it'?

Learning from the idiot in the room

Here is a great article from Mez McConnell titled 'Learning from the idiot in the room'. Let me strongly urge you to read it.

In it, he urges us to consider the following things when discussing with people from outside our theological/ecclesiastical "tribe":

• How is what this person saying challenging my long held beliefs?

• How have they arrived at their conclusions? What’s their (biblical) thought process been and how/why is it different to mine?

• Are my personal prejudices against this person (and/or their tribe) stopping me from really listening and engaging with this person? Have I made my mind up not to learn before we even start? Is this going to be more about debate and point scoring than mutual learning?

• Is there something I can actually learn here without compromising my doctrinal beliefs?

• Could I be wrong?

• Have I changed my mind about anything in the last few years? Have I ever, come to that matter?

Ask yourself (as I ask myself), how often do I do these things? Am I unable to learn from another person because of my own pre-existing prejudice? Is the idiot in the room really the person I'm talking to or the person in the conversation I know rather better?

Knowing vs feeling in worship

Here is Alistair Begg on knowing vs feeling in worship.

His point is an interesting one and pertinent for those suffering with depression, grief or other constraining emotions. Feelings are fleeting and regularly lie to us - what we feel is often not the same as that which is true. If our worship is predicated on our feelings, it may be based on a fleeting lie that - although feels right at the time - is contrary to that which is true. If, however, our worship is first based on that which is true - irrespective of our feelings at that moment - we will certainly worship God in truth and, as a result, it is likely our feelings will follow suit.

Interestingly, it is this principle upon which Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is based. As I have previously explained here, the principle behind CBT is to track negative feelings and thought patterns and counter-balance them with statements of truth. Where our feelings may seem real, and thus lead us to act in ways that feel rational at the time, CBT helps us to compare whether such feelings stand up to truth in reality. In turn, knowing what is true (rather than relying on that which feels true) will help us act rationally - in line with objective realities and not subjective feelings - and this often makes us feel better too. The knowledge of truth changes our action and thus alters how we feel.

Now, where better to look for such statements of truth than scripture. Indeed, even David uses this principle to help himself feel better. He states his feeling, compares it to what he knows to be true and relies on what he knows is true rather than what he feels to be true at the time. In many of the Psalms, this clearly alters both his actions and his feeling. Some of the time (e.g. Psalm 38), David appears to feel no better but he nonetheless knows what is true and doesn't act on what he feels is the case at that moment in time. So, even King David used CBT to help him act in line with what he knows to be true rather than what feels true at a particular point in time.

Alistair Begg, in my view, is right to say our feelings should be secondary in worship. If we start with our feelings, our view of truth will coloured by this subjective standard. If it is feelings that are of first import, the truth must conform to what we feel. If we start with what we know to be true, our feelings are more likely to align with what we know. Even if our feelings do not automatically follow the truth in this way (whilst most of the time they probably will, let's not pretend they always do), if truth comes first we can be certain our feelings do not necessarily align with what we know to be true. If nothing else, this should stop us acting rashly upon what feels right in the face of what we know to be true. A 'feelings first' approach is likely to lead us down the path of the backslider - when it feels wrong, hard and tough where do we go? A 'truth first' approach gives us a solid base by which our fleeting feelings may be measured.

Church climbing, pride and why I'm not like you

Church climbing is a particularly repellent activity. Treating the church as though there is some sort of greasy pole to climb really irritates me. The people that do this are not difficult to spot and are replete in our churches. 

I am sure we all know the sorts I mean - you can spot them a mile off. They are the ones looking for position in the church, those desperately hoping to catch the eye of elders and ministers. They shoehorn theological training into conversation, the places they have preached are mentioned apropos of nothing and, serendipitously, their latest set of sermon notes happen to fall out of their bible right in front of the minister. If they are musical, they happen to be at the piano after the service, just 'messing around' of course. They name-drop in the hope you may know and respect the people with whom they are connected. They are networkers, talking to all and sundry without ever really finding out about, or listening to, those whom they are speaking. They ask you about these same things to find out where you stand in the church pecking order. They cosy up to those who can get them on and laud it over those they perceive as inferior. They are the proud, superior church climbers seeking position and recognition.

It seems clear that this is nothing short of pride. It is a pride that assumes theological training is the same as knowledge and wisdom. It presumes you do not have training, or your training is worse than mine, so I understand things on a level you do not. It says I have experience in preaching, missions, childrens' work, music, or whatever, that really set me apart from others. It thinks, if others really knew about my background, education and abilities they would see that I really should be given position in the church. In fact, I really should be leading things in some way. Of course, these people never quite frame it in this way. Nevertheless, that is essentially the heart of this sort of self-promotion. It's the idea, if people really knew what I can do/have done, it's just obvious that I am the best person for the job. That is the heart of it and it is an ugly, repellent sin.

Now, I accept, I may have mentioned some of these things during conversations in church. Of course, when I do it, I'm not showing off and am certainly not seeking position in the church. When I raise these things it is because I want to be useful in the church and, how can I best be used if people don't know my experience, background and training? I'm not being proud when I claim my qualifications outflank yours, I'm just stating a fact acknowledged throughout academia. When I talk about my years of experience in preaching and missions I'm just highlighting that I may be able to serve the church in this way. The difference between me and you is: I'm not church climbing, I'm just factually stating my experience. Nevertheless, even though theological training, preaching experience and background in missions are never mentioned as a qualification for office in the church, it's pretty clear once you know these things about me I should be in the running. I'm not being proud, I'm just trying to make the most of my gifts and serve the church as best I can.

I'm not a church climber. It's just that, when all is said and done, my experience and training put me in a strong position to serve the church. In fact, I could serve the church all the more if I am given an office and it's pretty clear my experience lends itself to that. I am being servant hearted, trying to use all my gifts where they will best be utilised by the church. When you do it, you're being proud and grasping at position - that's obvious. When I do it, I'm really serving the church and seeking to make the most of my gifts. When you do it, you are a proud church climber. When I do it, I'm being a humble servant of the church. 

That is presumably why I find church climbing so irritating and offensive. If you really understood things the way I do, you would see how much more qualified I am than you for position in the church. You go about crassly stating your experience and qualification in the hope of a role for which you are clearly ruled out both inherently, by your pride, and comparatively, compared to me. I, on the other hand, just make known these things because, of course, the facts will speak for themselves.

When you do it, you're a proud, arrogant, misguided church climber. When I do it, I'm a humble, servant-hearted individual seeking to serve the church as best I am able. When you do it, it's definitely a sin, we all see that. When I do it, and if I'm given a role, it's for the church's good.

Equating theological knowledge and ministry success with spiritual maturity

A fantastic post on The Gospel Coalition Blog by Paul Tripp warning about the danger of equating theological knowledge and ministry success with spiritual maturity.

I will not pass comment here but will offer a couple of selected quotes. In respect to equating theological knowledge with spiritual maturity, he says:

There is a huge difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is an accurate understanding of truth. Wisdom is understanding and living in light of how that truth applies to the situations and relationships of your daily life. Knowledge is an exercise of your brain. Wisdom is the commitment of your heart that leads to life transformation.

In respect to equating ministry success with an endorsement by God of spiritual maturity, he says:

God has the authority and power to use whatever instruments he chooses in whatever way he chooses. Ministry success is always more a statement about God than about the people he uses for his purpose.

Do read the full post - it really is insightful.

Treasures on earth?

In our modern culture there seems to be an expectation that people should seek to buy property. There is a sense in which one should buy a house, wait for its value to increase and then sell it in order to move into a bigger property. It is on this basis that the recent credit crunch was portrayed as an utter disaster. Mortgage lenders restricted lending and the value of property dropped. Many are now struggling to get a foot on the property ladder, those who already own houses are concerned that their property value has severely decreased and ultimately that they have lost money.


This culture seems to have found its way into the Church. There is an expectation, even amongst Christians, that one would naturally seek to get a foot on the property ladder and even move into bigger property as the value increases. Many show their bias towards this thinking by referring to renting as 'dead money' but buying as 'an investment.' Some even seek to spiritualise the decision by claiming that buying a house is 'good stewardship.' However, how far can we say that this is really true?


Of course, if we are offered the choice between owning or renting a house, both houses having minimal differences and the cost being identitical, it is perfectly reasonable for us to buy. However, how often is this the case? In reality, to buy a home we must firstly save up a sizeable deposit, then take out a mortgage often 4 or 5 times our yearly salary and then pay interest on top of the value borrowed for 25-35 years. When one factors in the costs of maintenance and building insurance on top of this the price of buying a property is mammoth. Can we justify this amount of money as Christians?


The first point to consider is that the money spent on our property benefits only ourselves. When we tie up considerable sums in owning property we tie up money that could otherwise be directed to Christian work. If we rented, instead of bought, how much more money would we have available to give to the church, missions and evangelistic outreach?


We must also consider our motives for buying a house. Some cite the need to own property in order to provide for their old age. Jesus told us, however, not to worry about tomorrow (Mat 6:25-34) and not to store up treasures on earth (Mat 6:19). If we are concerned about the future and are sinking vast sums into our homes as a result we are failing to heed Jesus' command. Some buy into the culture of getting larger and larger properties. This, however, runs contrary to the parable of the rich fool (Lk 12:16-22). Indeed, how much more would we have to give to the Lord's work if we did not tie our money up in our homes? Moreover, is it right for us to put our money into our home in the hope that it will increase in value so that we can get a larger one? It seems that the teaching of the Bible is clear on these points.


It is also possible to argue that taking out a mortgage is a form of gambling. Many people find themselves in dire financial straits because they have calculated the affordability of a mortgage based on current rates of interest but, when interest rates change, they are unable to maintain payments. People gamble that the rate of inflation will stay low enough for them to afford mortgage repyaments. Not only is there risk involved in taking out a mortgage but the stakes with which we are playing could not be higher. Ultimately, this could run into the tens of thousands.


We must also consider how much more difficult it is to answer God's call when we are tied into property. To be called to overseas mission or into the pastorate in another part of the country is all the harder to follow when we first have to concern ourselves with selling our house. In fact, it is quite conceiveable that many would consider themselves unable to answer the call if they could not first find a buyer for their home. How skewed our logic becomes! The call of God becomes second to the sale of our property.


This skewed logic runs deeper. Some in the Church argue that going into debt is wrong. Nevertheless, where their mortgage is concerned they have a blindspot. They encourage people to take out sizeable mortgages on the one hand whilst sneering at the use of a small overdraft facility or loan on the other. Such a view is hugely inconsistent! It is almost as if a mortgage is, by some token, not considered debt despite the mammoth sums involved. If we do not believe mortgages are wrong then we cannot suggest that these other types of loan are wrong. If we insist that loans are wrong then we must equally insist mortgages are wrong. We cannot have it both ways and yet because of the property culture we seek to make it so.


So, can we as Christians really justify buying houses? It may be possible, in certain circumstances, to say that it is justifiable. Nevertheless, we must conclude that a worldly culture has infiltrated the church. Instead of relying on God we rely on our investment for the future. Instead of giving from the first of what we have, when our salary initially comes in, we give from what is left over, when we've made our mortgage payments. Is this the culture we should have adopted in the church or should we seriously reconsider whether it is right for us to buy our own home?