I KNOW THE TIME IS GONNA COME

The Father has a message,

Sent through me with blessing,

To ev’ry one of His lonely children,

He knows you feel dejected,

‘Cos people have rejected,

The mercy that the Lord’s showing to them,

Oh and I know He wants to assure you,

That ev’rything will be alright,

Oh and I know He wants to remind you,

To keep the hope of heaven in sight.

CHORUS

Oh I know, the time is gonna come,

Those people gonna praise His name,

Oh I know, they’ll recognize His face,

And they are gonna be ashamed,

To see how they treated and how they despised Him,

And yet He loved them all the same,

It was for those who crucified Him,

That He as their Redeemer came.

VERSE 2

If you feel seclusion,

Facing persecution,

Remember what the Saviour said,

Bless the ones who hate you,

Do good, though they despise you,

In everything just keep your head,

And I am sure you will be rewarded,

For ev’ry ounce of suffering and shame,

His angels’ protection will be afforded,

To those who bear reproach for His name.

CHORUS

Oh I know, the time is gonna come,

Those people gonna praise His name,

Oh I know, they’ll recognize His face,

And they are gonna be ashamed,

To see how they treated and how they despised Him,

And yet He loved them all the more,

Yes, it was those who crucified Him,

That the cross He died upon was for.

Refugee Song

The refugee had lost all strength,
Survival was his only law,
With thoughts ruled by expedients,
Could self-esteem have been restored?

Oh, why is love so hard?
Why is there so much pain?
Why did I break her heart?
I’ll never love this way again

Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God.

Although we are all called to exercise practical generosity, there are some areas of Christian service that can thwart our availability for others. We can frustrate the development of a person's  primary gifting and ministry by assigning them elsewhere. When the apostles were called upon to resolve the omission of welfare support for Greek widows, they said: ‘It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables’. Instead, they assigned the responsibility as a separate task for deacons (Acts 6:1)

Today, Anglican evangelism is dominated by deacon outreach. Of course, 'daily ministrations', such as food parcels and welfare missionaries are important to the church's work. Nevertheless, they should not be confused with evangelism: publicising Jesus' victory of over sin and death and warning the world that we must now, through Christ, find refuge from that great day of mankind's eternal reckoning.  Of course, at the same time, scripture reminds us: 'therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers' (Gal. 6:10). Also, 'do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.', (Heb. 3:16). These offerings are to be organised in accordance with each person's means: 'On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.' (1 Cor. 16:2)

All of these are worthwhile practical expressions of our commitment to the God who cares for the poor. These endeavours also enhance the credibility of the gospel. Nevertheless, there is an abiding notion that the Anglican church should engage in these acts of public charity and community-building without explaining, in the context of performing those charitable acts, the importance of 'repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ' (Acts 20:21). 

Some would have us believe that evangelism is better expressed through the silent witness of our good works before the consciences of unbelievers. They are partly right. Those in positions of authority are best won to Christ by quiet exemplary conduct. Nevertheless, that conduct is still a backdrop to the central message that must be preached. Paul asks rhetorically: 'how, then, can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?' Of course, they can’t. The church has a duty to declare the gospel beyond the confines of the edifice to the whole community!

The reasons that I hear advanced for neglecting the overt preaching of the gospel outside of church premises is that it's focus on the after-life reward and punishment is too far removed from the practical needs of society, a turn-off, inappropriate, ill-timed and best directed towards those who eventually attend church and express a desire to discover more. They will likely be pointed towards an Alpha course to be run in a month’s time. Anything to evade responsibility for delivering the gospel to an unwelcoming audience.

Underlying all of this is a fear of rejection. You can sense that many Christians wrestle with the unpalatable thought that we might be treated with scorn and misunderstood (much the same as Christ was). We hate to bear the painful epithets of secular contempt: ‘holy roller'; 'he claims he’s found God', 'she’s too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good'; ‘his head’s in the clouds’. Yet, slander was the very experience of Jesus Himself and the apostles as they proclaimed the Kingdom of God. Andrew Lloyd-Webber captures this slur perfectly in Jesus Christ Superstar. Judas follows up his accusation that, ‘all your followers are blind, with too much heaven on their minds’ with the fearful warning, ‘and they’ll crush us if we go too far!’

Yes, there were miraculous conversions, but by and large, the gospel demanded a level of change that most found intolerable. It was met with a slanderous smear campaign aimed at undermining the early Christians’ public standing and credibility.

The reluctance to speak informally of Christ as the only means of deliverance from the coming judgement is also an inverted form of arrogance. How could we believe that our own paltry charity efforts (so minuscule when compared to God permitting His body of incarnate deity to be beaten, spat upon, exposed and executed) could somehow be a better witness than to recount what Christ suffered Himself?

So why is there such reticence about the saving work of Christ?

1. Christian charity has become a PR exercise, the focus of which is winning secular acceptance of the human organisation, rather than its spiritual head, Jesus Christ.

2. Offence caused by mentioning the gospel of heaven contradicts efforts to make church members appear more likeable and practically minded to secular outsiders.

3. Many lay church members are not taught to explain their faith and lead others to Christ. In relation to evangelism, they are taught to lead others to church services.

4. The path to lay involvement in evangelism is far too formalised. Discernment before ordination, while an important means of scrutiny, has become obstructive.

5. Christian faith has been reduced to a code of organisational affiliation and loyalty.

6. There is no defining moment of moral transition that would publicly underscore the importance of being born again.

7. There are very few testimonies of radical conversion that would inspire those who have strayed far from God.

8. Churches are looking for a particular type of pragmatic problem-solver who is more inclined to rely on professionally acquired skills and connections and intelligence than on divine guidance and intervention.

9. Loyalty to a church leader's favoured approach and priorities is valued more highly than loyalty to the approach and priorities of the early church.

It's a tall order, but change these factors and we might yet have a church that can radically change the world for God and for good. The pathetic alternative (for those who hope to avoid the cardinal offence against secular morality of demanding repentance) is to continue to invite the neighbours to yet another parish social!

Happy Families!

I've been reading an article about how families with IVF babies have had to combine traditional ideas about kinship with novel ways of developing a common bond with the new child. It may help to ask ourselves what makes the church into a real family. That’s what most of us want from a church: a sense of permanent belonging, that we’d be missed if we left for good.
1. Affirmation of Resemblance
People accept that, not only do we inherit natural characteristics from our parents, but that many of these are easily discernible. We often say, 'he has his father's nose', 'she has her Mum's smile'. In a broader sense, an accent or physical trait may even give away our national heritage. Do we discern and affirm divine family resemblance when we see it? Do we behold and affirm what we see of the living God in each other? Are the natural and spiritual gifts of some easily dismissed as peripheral, or suspect, while others are encouraged to thrive? Is it easier to relate to an inner circle?
2. Family Narrative
A family narrative involves a series of memorable common experiences that were shared and recounted throughout the family. It might be something as simple as a shared meal, a medical crisis, or a holiday.  'Remember when your Dad and I took you and your sister to Brighton?' Suddenly, all the memories of that great summer holiday come flooding back. Each relative adds a part of that story that wouldn't mean a thing to outsiders. It refreshes the common bond of kinship between them. The early church's narrative was marked by a commitment to suffer with Christ, knowing that they would reign with Him in eternity. Out of that common experience, the challenge that the early church faced was to build a kinship that would resonate with both Jews and Gentiles: the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the transformation of the gospel. The dynamic narrative that we see in the Book of Acts captured their imagination and wrote a new story of God's love on their hearts. It overcame their cultural and ethnic differences. COGS members need to participate in a commonly owned narrative about what God is doing in the church. Every member needs to have a stake in that narrative. One that reinforces a sense of common purpose and invites full participation of all members. Christ himself said: ‘For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother‘ (Matt. 12:50)
3. Exchanging Confidences, Knowing Vulnerabilities 
Family members will share confidences that they'll not share with outsiders: Uncle Festus' nervous breakdown last year; Auntie Kitty's 'friend' who spent the vacation with her in Provence. If we are unwilling, or feel it to be unsafe to share confidences with anyone in church, it means that the extended family support will be thwarted. In contrast, Paul says, 'Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ' (Gal. 6:2)
4. Effortless Acceptance and Goodwill.
Children generally don't have to make a great effort to be liked by family. They are welcomed at every get-together with words like 'my you've grown since I last saw you'.  How often do we say anything encouraging about each other's Christian maturity? Although there is a place for rebuke, family members should generally be proud and supportive of each other. They typically boast to outsiders about each other's accomplishments.
Compare this with the experience of new employees. They spend their first few months on probation. It takes a long time to establish the organisation’s trust. They cannot contribute fully until their loyalty and competence has been thoroughly vetted. Their role is always in danger of being made redundant. Is your experience of church hierarchies, one of welcoming parents, or cautious supervisors?
So, unless we discover and affirm the valued contribution that each of us can add to the church, many will feel under-appreciated. As with Jewish circumcision in the early church, if we constantly vet all new members and make them jump through too many hoops, they will lose heart.
In contrast with this, St. Paul, the former enemy of Christians and whose conversion was initially viewed with suspicion, was soon warmly accepted as authentic. The result was that the apostles extended to him the 'right hands of fellowship' (Gal. 2:9) to spearhead the mission to the Gentiles. They knew that Paul had already almost lost his life for sake of spreading the gospel.
In summary, let us agree to:
1. Affirm the godly resemblances in each other more than our superficial differences
2. Build a family narrative through the impact of full participation for all
3. Know, share and openly commit to help each other's weaknesses
4. Affirm and reassure the newer members of their gifts as much as the longstanding members.
Hope this is a blessing.

The Ordination of Women

Those who oppose the ordination of women claim that their view is scriptural. They refer to Paul’s insistence: ‘A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.’ (1 Tim. 2:12)

Yet, if this is an absolute, why does Paul also say, ‘And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.’ (1 Cor. 11:5)? So women did pray and prophesy publicly and this conditions Paul’s instruction to Timothy. Philip, the deacon and evangelist, had four young daughters who prophesied (Acts. 21:9). Prophets would encourage congregants with elated expressions of thanksgiving for God’s covenant faithfulness and His supernatural subversion of worldly merit. They would instruct, warn and encourage devotion to Him and each other in the face of recent and predicted challenges. These are all the hallmarks of any great sermon.

It is unfortunate that the office of the prophet is not as publicly recognised as that of the evangelist, deacon and elder in today’s church. If anything, the need for prophetic discerning admonition has only increased. However, if the prophet was a recognised church appointment, rather than treated as an ad hoc ministry, would those who oppose the ordination of women then welcome the participation of prophetesses? Or would they produce scripture to support the notion that the prophetic gift had died out. I suspect that it would be the latter because of the historic Protestant focus on centralised pulpit authority. On any given Sunday, one person becomes the unchallenged voice directing the church: evangelist, teacher and preacher rolled into one. It’s a concentration of church authority that is unbiblical and opens the door to the possibility of unprincipled thought manipulation.

The early church liturgy (derived from the synagogue) involved three principal components: the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the formal explanation of the text and an open discussion. When he limited female participation, Paul meant the second component, the formal discourse that was typically delivered by a learned male elder. Even when Paul and Silas travelled to Pisidian Antioch, it is unlikely that they would have delivered that component (Acts 13). More probably, they would have been invited to participate in the reasoned discussion that followed. This principal part of first century synagogue liturgy, the word of encouragement as a part of reasoned group discussion, is now largely missing from modern Christian liturgies. In Berea, the disciples were commended because they ‘were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth.’ (Acts 17:11)

Whereas Paul and Silas expected questions and intelligent counter-arguments, we are expected to silently listen to the ‘private interpretation’ formulated by each licensed minister, who expects to promote his/her views without a public post-sermon discussion. The result is that few lay members can discern heresy without the aid of a minister, or reason on behalf of their faith skilfully and convincingly. Scripture memorisation is lacking. The church is reduced to a platform for promoting an orthodoxy that avoids impromptu public scrutiny, far less exposure to external criticism. To thoughtful outsiders, it seems like little more than formulaic mind-control. Explaining the Christian faith is now better learnt from books on Christian apologetics, rather than through the dynamics of a short post-sermon group discussion.

Liturgy should adapt to accommodate open reasoned discussion, rather than the usual unquestioned 40 minute monologue. Post-sermon Q&A sessions, twitters and discussion forums should be buzzing with queries and insights. Instead, the congregation trundles home, knowing that, even if questions are entertained on a one-to-one basis after the sermon, passive consensus is generally preferred to any public vocal expression of their critical thinking faculties. Equally, home study groups can often refuse to entertain reasoned intelligent counter-arguments. Especially, when a controversial opinion can be relegated due to the tightly monitored discussion schedule. How many times has a thoughtful contradiction been either subjected to thinly veiled ridicule, or brushed aside with a remark like, ‘We really must move on!’? It may not be intended as dismissive, but it achieves the same end: the teacher’s zealously guarded status and all of their preconceived agendas remain unassailable.

When Peter and John were arrested by Temple guards and interrogated before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4), their lack of formal training was noted. In spite of this, they performed a prophetic role in challenging the majority view. Peter declared that Paul’s knowledge of the Law and Prophets and the revelation given to him regarding the deep truths of salvation therein were exceptional: ‘He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.’ (2 Pet. 3:16)

Nevertheless, the unschooled apostles held the same status as the educated ones. They were all witnesses to the power of Jesus’ resurrection. There was a respectful fraternity without priestly elitism.

We all know that, at that time, adult women would have had little opportunity to devote to the study of the Torah. Paul’s comparison of the first-century situation with Adam and Eve is valid in that the gender disparity in knowledge mirrored the sequence of creation. Paul did not demand that moral insight is to be gained second-hand through men for perpetuity, but he did argue for a disciplinary authority in the church that did not contradict male authority within the Christian family. Just to ensure that he was not misinterpreted, he explained gender interdependence: ‘In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.’ (1 Cor. 11:11)

If a woman could become a recognised prophetess in the early church, gifted women can and should attain a recognised role in the ministry of the modern church. Nevertheless, both genders in Christian ministry would do well to encourage a liturgy that involves public lay participation in a reasoned discussion of the Word. A fifteen minute Sunday post-sermon Q&A session would be a good start. Social media can also be utilised.

In contrast, to deliver a message and then lack the time, inclination or resources to discuss, debate and refine the impact of a sermon straight afterwards in a post-sermon church forum undermines the very purpose of anyone appointed to a position of church oversight. It’s a formula for oppressing our God-given thought faculties and encouraging moral puppet-mastery over the laity. And who wants that?

The Neglected Winemaker

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.’ (John 15: 5 – 8 )

Winemakers may also be vineyard owners, but first and foremost, they (surprise, surprise) produce wine. It’s really obvious, but it means that the vine has a specific overall purpose. However luxuriant its foliage, however full its buds, however strong its branches, its fundamental purpose in a vineyard is to deliver as many fine grapes as possible. The job of the vine is to deliver the raw material for wine.

Without that raw material, production stops, and there ceases to be a benefit. Spiritually, first century Judaea had ceased to deliver what God desired: the raw material of practical devotion to God that He could use to right a world that was so wrong.

The nation’s leaders had compromised values under the Roman Empire’s tyranny. Even the divine laws were interpreted by the religious elite in a manner that contradicted God’s underlying intent to benefit the whole nation. Those who were wealthy assumed that their accumulated comfort was proof of God’s approval. They segregated their social lives, ostracised the poor from positions of authority, abandoned the chronically helpless and publicly censured sinners with contemptuous disregard. It was all too easy to reap condemnation for even ceremonial mistakes. Forgiveness and reacceptance by society could only be provided through the temple officials at great financial expense. An even greater cost was imposed on pilgrims to Israel, who were forced to pay a hefty commission to convert their money into temple currency. It was far easier to condemn, than rehabilitate wrongdoers by giving them a chance to change.

John the Baptiser was hurled into the midst of this moral mayhem. He demanded that everyone in Israel re-evaluate their behaviour and devotion to God with a desire to make amends wherever they fell short and deliver fruit from their lives that was worthy of the nation’s God-given role. They should have been an example to the world, rather than a cause of God’s shame. For many, It was the impetus for change that they needed. A fresh start in a newly formed community. One that would let them bury the past and live a new life. He offered a simple ritual of cleansing that would signal an end to their neglect of God and a new focus on relaying God’s providence to others. A new life symbolised by BAPTISM: the purification rite of water immersion.

Teaching explains what we don’t understand, whereas preaching insists on what we already know. Of course, we know what to do. It’s just that we prefer to do something else and we can’t do both. The Prophets, Jesus, the apostles preach one message: without the mercy of God, our lives don’t deserve to remain part of God’s creation. Without the mercy of God, our nourishment through all that God has created will be lost forever. The Winemaker is on his way, so where’s the fruit we owe Him?

Foreseeing the destruction of Jerusalem a few decades later, John PREACHED to any Jews who lacked remorse that the era of privileged hereditary protection was almost over: ‘Even now the axe of God's judgment is poised, ready to sever the roots of the trees. Yes, every tree that does not produce good fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire." This is the preaching of the Kingdom of God: ‘If there’s no desire for fruit, judgment is poised over my fate. No fruit? No more privilege. Where’s God’s fruit?’

It is mandatory. If we are casual and not eager to demonstrate moral change, our privilege of growing in the soil of God’s providence and revealed truth hangs by a thread. It is ready to be lost forever by those who don’t desire to respond productively to God. Those who do respond partially, are challenged to deliver even more fruit.

Christ also reminds us to ask for whatever we like. As long as it doesn’t hinder us from our primary purpose, guess what? We can have it!

All around us today, we see the proof that the status earned by our Christian forefathers is receding from our grasp. The freedom of Christian expression in society is opposed on all sides. Atheism, godless secular thought and mindless contempt for the church is on the rise. No fruit? No more privilege. It’s time to ask and when you do, ASK BIG!

Without fruit, as the Messiah promises ‘Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Notice their focus on ministry gifts: prophecy, exorcism, miracle-working are the tools to achieve the intended outcome, they are not the intended outcome. Imagine telling a winemaker who comes to collect grapes about the work you did on his behalf: how well you’ve tilled soil, pruned branches and spread fertilizer, WHEN WHAT HE WANTS IS FRUIT.

So what fruit does God require? You know already. ‘He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.’ (Micah 6:8 )

THE FRUIT:

• Discreet, practical empathy that reaches out to improve the lot of those confronted with hardship and injustice. Defraud no-one. Deceive no-one.
• Prayerful compassion that reaches out selflessly to empower those overpowered by hate, selfishness and helplessness.
• Thankfulness to and opportunism for God against evil in a world full of selfish grudging discontent with His natural abundant providence.

Growth, Division, Multiplication

Organic growth is achieved through cell division, multiple cell differentiation, expansion and adaptation.

In church, are we willing to divide cells and build new smaller units of fellowship that expand and adapt for new purposes? How will those new cell units need to adapt to grow in a very different environment? How will they develop? Will a few parts of the body remain relatively unchanged in purpose and size, like our eyes?

Paul says, 'I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God gave the increase’ (1 Cor. 3:7).

Christ’s own growth example involved pruning away unproductive aspects of our individual and corporate lives: 'I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.' (John 15:1 - 4)

Our two-service proposal for Sunday worship is a low risk initiative that foreshadows future growth: the development of interdependent units of community, outreach and worship. Units that can spread and demonstrate the message of God’s Kingdom in a wider context than is possible now.

That's the ultimate aim of church growth. Beyond the numerical outreach, this proposal is a test of whether the church cell is capable of the cell division and differentiation needed to adapt to the needs of our community. To do so, the church needs to draw upon the moral and emotional energy reserves bestowed by God on all its members.

Uncontrolled, rapid cell division does not provide normal healthy growth and adaptation to a changing environment. It is like cancer and it can destroy us by first disrupting existing useful functions and finally spreading to destroy vital organs.

As a pre-cursor, it is far better to spur change by challenging church members to re-group around smaller initiatives that may involve working towards a goal outside of each other's comfort zone.
Beware of inward focused self absorption. There are those who believe that the church's primary duty is towards the comfort of its existing members. It's not change in itself that they fear, but the disruption of the comfortable relationships and roles that they've built for emotional support and insulation. As you know, Paul faced major emotional upheaval when the Holy Spirit made it clear that he had to move on from Ephesus never to return (Acts 21:13)

Finally, what are the lessons to be learnt from our past outreach initiative, Taste?
Was the whole church involved?
What worked and what didn't?
Was the mission to invite outsiders and attend with them accepted by all members?
Did any of the existing church members reject the idea on the level of personal encouragement and involvement?
Did it end for natural reasons, or was too much responsibility for success imposed on too few church members?
Why won't history repeat itself this time?