|
Splendour in the Ordinary
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
 Preaching through the Creed recently, I have again been reminded that contrary to the belief of not a few Christians, God does not frown upon physical matter. When the creed affirms “I believe in the resurrection of the body", it looks forward to the Resurrection Day, when we will be resurrected in the body. Notice how very carefully concrete the creed puts it. It does not talk about “the resurrection of the dead” but “the resurrection of the body”.
The resurrection will find us not bodiless phantoms, ephemeral and ethereal. Rather, we will have real tangible bodies.
Our Lord himself rose bodily. He ate and drank with them over a period of 40 days. He said, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have” Lk 24:39. The teaching is plain. - just as the resurrected body of Jesus is in every sense a real body, so will ours be.
John Updike has a poem called Seven Stanzas at Easter. In it he has a fine line that says: “Make no mistake, if He rose at all, it was His body”. Then, in a most detailed and graphic way he talks about the reversal of the dissolution of our bodily cells; the re-knitting together of the molecules; the re-kindling of amino acids; he talks about the hinged joints of the thumb and toes; and the “valved heart”. Updike, whether a Christian or not, is theologically sound. And Seven Stanzas is a most fascinating poem!
When Jesus says, “Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days”, he is talking about his bones, muscle tissues, tendons, sinews and all. He is talking anatomy. Cadaverous as it may sound, he has in mind his tibia and fibula, his radius and ulna, ileum, femur, clavicle, sternum, scapula; biceps and triceps and all!!
C.S. Lewis puts it in six simple words: “God loves matter. He created it”
Have you ever thought that of all the analogies God could have used to express our entrance into new life. He chooses to use something as materialistic as water. And he gets our entire body to participate in an act of immersion in water. It is no wonder that Philip Larkin the poet describes baptism as a “joyous, devout drenching”. Let us not forget that Archbishop William Temple describes Christianity as “the most materialistic religion”.
In the wooden manger at Bethlehem, we encounter real baby skin, real baby burps and smell. On the wooden cross the nails impaled real flesh and tendon. On the morning of His resurrection, it was a real slab of granite that was rolled away, not one fashioned from papier-mâché. Jesus spat real slimy saliva into his real hands, rubbed it over the blind man’s defected eyes so that light rays may again hit his retina. And so were the leprous scabs flaky and the fishermen’s catch fishy.
Other religions may disparage physical matter. Not Christianity. Our Lord thought nothing demeaning about matter. Quite unlike the ancient Greeks and some Hindu sects, the Bible does not look at the body as merely the “container” for the soul; something inherently evil. So while the Greeks sought the redemption from the body. Christians seek the redemption of the body.
Consequently, very ordinary things can become endowed with deep spiritual significance. The bread and wine at a communion feast come to be invested with deep significance and sanctity because they become associated with someone's act of love for another
In the same way, the Victoria Cross, as metal, is worth no more than a few dollars. But to the parents of the brave soldier who died saving his nation, it is priceless. The old armchair, to the eyes of the second-hand dealer, is worth a couple of dollars but to the sons and daughters of the family, it is "father's armchair" and they wouldn't trade it for anything.
And there things in this world which strike deep spiritual chords within us. Great music, the surge of the sea, the smell of wood smoke, the woods carpeted with bluebells, the flight of geese south when the cold sets in, the golden hues of autumn leaves, and a hundred other things can touch and move our human spirits in a way science is powerless to explain.
It's as though there is another dimension and as J.B. Philips says, "this physical world is shot through and through with spiritual realities". We see the spiritual in the material.
In other words, there is splendour in the ordinary.
Enemies at the Gate
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
 Char les Thomas Studd better known as C.T. Studd was born in England in 1860. He had a great passion for cricket. In fact his older brother Kynaston Studd, was a member of the Cambridge cricket team. C.T. himself went on to become a household name in Great Britain and before long he captained of the Cambridge cricket team.
But God saved CT in 1878 when he was eighteen years of age. CT came to the point in his conviction to live fully for the Lord. He was challenged by the great missionary Hudson Taylor to reach out to the millions of people in China.
CT felt he had to give up the promising career and a life of relative ease that lies ahead of him. He had set his heart to go to China.
But as he came to experience strong opposition came from within his own family. His father had died and he felt family pressure to not abandon his mother. When he broke the news to his mother she was devastated. His brother was shattered too. In the ensuing months, Studd went through a deep struggle. He loved the Lord but he loved his mother too and it deeply troubled him to see his mother's heart break like it did.
But he was determined that he must obey the Lord. And on the day before he was to leave, his mother fell into a deep depression and Studd had to pull together all he had to brace himself to honour the Lord to the end. He decided to take a walk that evening and he went to a tram-station. And there, under the light of the lamppost, he took out his pocket Bible and it fell opened at Micah 7:6, "a man's enemies are the men of his own house." With that he was on his way.
There comes a time when the takeover bid on our lives is made by those who are closest and dearest to us; a spouse who will not release you to the Lord; a mother or a brother who has other plans for your life. But as Studd has written, "If Jesus Christ be God and died for me, then no sacrifice can be too great for me to make for Him."
Free To Be Poor
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
 “The Church must be free to be poor in order to minister among the poor. The Church must trust the Gospel enough to come among the poor with nothing to offer the poor except the Gospel, except the power to discern and the courage to expose the Gospel as it is already mediated in the life of the poor…When the Church has the freedom itself to be poor among the poor, it will know how to use what riches it has. When the Church has that freedom, it will know also how to minister among the rich and powerful. When the Church has that freedom, it will be a missionary people again in all the world. When the Church has the freedom to go out into the world with merely the Gospel to offer the world, then it will know how to use whatever else it has–money and talent and buildings and tapestries and power in politics–as sacraments of its gift of its own life to the world, as tokens of the ministry of Christ.” – William Stringfellow - A Private and Public Faith (1962)
How Will You Preach?
Saturday, September 6, 2008
 Next week, we will finally finish the last class of our course on preaching. Soon you will, as budding preachers, be put in the platform. And you will be preaching your very first sermon. I have been thinking about this. I have been reminded that the word "sermon" comes from a word which has the Latin root meaning, "to thrust" or "to stab." Preaching has been referred to as stepping on the dragon’s head. It would seem in the light of the root word “sermon” that we need to do more than stepping on that head. As we step on the dragon’s head, we also need take a stab at the human heart to bring about conviction. The fact that preaching is on the wane may perhaps be seen in the way we set up our church, It used to be that the congregation centered its attention on the elders' table, from which the Bible would be proclaimed, often by more than one elder. When increasingly only a single preacher was called on to preach, the pulpit was raised and usually placed in the center. With such an arrangement, the focus is still placed on the centrality of preaching. But what we now mostly see in many churches today, is a divided chancel, with a pulpit on one side, a lectern on the other. This may well be giving a subtle message that preaching is now a secondary or even minor role. And yet we must never forget that preaching is a God-commissioned task that carries with it great authority. The preacher does not stand behind the pulpit to share his point of view. He is declaring what God says. The word homiletics comes from two Greek words, namely homo, meaning “the same” and lego meaning “to say”. Preaching is nothing more and nothing less than “saying the same things that God says” As Bernard Manning defines it, "Preaching is the manifestation of the Incarnate Word (Jesus Christ), from the written Word (the Bible), by the spoken word (of the preacher)." In the light of this, preaching is an authoritative declaration of the mind and desire of God. True preaching is unique in that it has God's authority behind it. It may be that anyone can give a religious address or give his opinions on religious or spiritual topics. But it is only the one who expounds and explains God's message, who has any real authority. Real preaching will say, "God says..." While there may be a place for some personal take in terms of a particular interpretation of an obscure and uncertain text or an application of a particular teaching, preaching's primary effort ought to focus on retelling what God clearly tells in His Word. Remembering this, as you preach your very first sermon, preach not only with passion and excellence but preach with the authority entrusted upon you.
From the Four Laws to the Four Circles
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Forty-three years ago when Bill Bright the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ devised The Four Spiritual Laws, I was roped in together with other young enthusiasts for training in using this simple yellow booklet. Little did I know, that in the next four decades, through God's grace, with those simple four steps, I was to lead many people to salvation in Christ. For many of you who weren't even born then, here it is: http://campuscrusade.com/fourlawseng.htmBut we need to change with the times. I have a feeling the Four Laws may not be used as effectively now with our postmodern people. We need an approach that will receive a readier hearing. This morning, I stumbled upon the Four Circles - a fresh way of sharing Christ with non-believers. This young man, with a few strokes of his thick-tipped marker, came up with a novel way of sharing the faith. It has been field-tested by InterVarsity staffworkers.
Here is the video-clip of it: http://www.jameschoung.net/2007/09/17/the-big-story/#comment-2777I wrote to James Choung this morning to commend him and tell him that I will be sharing this with you all. I encourage us in Christ Sanctuary to go ahead and use it in our next opportunity to share the faith. And here is the site where James actually teaches us how to use the Four Circles. http://www.jameschoung.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/explanation-of-the-big-story-32.pdfSomeone once said that each generation has its God-given tool for evangelism. The Four Laws was greatly used by the Lord. Are we here seeing a new tool for our generation? Whatever it may turn out to be, I pray God will honour this humble attempt to build His kingdom. Andrew
Can Christians go clubbing?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
A young Christian recently sent this email to her friend: One thing they said in church was that christians cant go out clubbing... and im like what? why not, sure christians shouldnt get drunk and high and things like that, but clubbing in itself, i believe, isnt going against christian beliefs. So I would like some understanding of this as to what he was meaning.Let's hear some of your responses to this. Tracey
Another Take on the Theories of Atonement
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
 Thanks to Travis for introducing us to the various theories of atonement. It was particularly amazing that all of you were able to enter straightaway into the various issues of the debate seeing that for many of you it was the first time you’ve probably been introduced to these theories. Malcolm's group rightly pointed out the insidious nature of the Ransom Theory. It would look like, because of our sin, we belong to Satan, and God buys us back with the death of Jesus, only to then turn the tables on Satan with the Resurrection. Implicates God for what would look like a sleigh of hand. Further it makes Satan out to be the one who demands payment and not God. We need to be clear that it was God’s holiness, not Satan’s, that was offended, and payment had to be made to God to avert His wrath. Furthermore, Satan did not have the power to free man, God alone had the power.  Brent’s group pulled down the hidden weaknesses of the Moral Influence Theory. It made Jesus out to be just another charismatic martyr whose life and death merely inspires people to live morally well. It gives the idea that people are able to raise themselves out of sin by their own bootstraps. If this were so, then Jesus' death was not necessary as an expiation for sin. It made the basis for the death of Christ His love rather than His holiness. It assumes that people’s emotions can be moved sufficiently to lead them to repentance. There is no running away from the clear teaching of the Word that the death of Christ was substitutionary (Matt. 20:28). Sinners are justified before a holy God, not merely influenced by an example of love.  Aun’s group examined what is perhaps the most popular of all the theories - Penal Substitution. Travis pointed out the vital difference between what is a “penal crime” and what is a “pecuniary crime”. Consequently, opponents have argued that no criminal justice system in the world would ever consider it is just to punish the innocent in place of the guilty. Further, this theory gives the impression that sin is an external matter to be transferred from one person to another. But is it? This group also pointed out that Penal Substition made God out to be an austere Judge whose interest is chiefly forensic. Recently Steve Chalke from the UK mounted a fresh attack on Penal Substitution by arguing that it portrays God as a vengeful Cosmic Child Abuser. But I remember Leon Morris saying that whilst such criticisms may be valid they do not rock the essential basis of the Penal Substitution view. He helpfully points out that there is a “double identification”: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). Packer himself may have some aversion with Penal Substitution but he warms up to it and positively affirms that there is a "substantial rightness of the Reformed view of the atonement." I like Travis' emphasis that it is helpful to look at these critiques not as attempts to pull down our faith but to build it up by saving it from the older, perhaps cruder forms of understanding.
archives
|
