The best new year's resolution you can make

Read the Bible!

Bible reading plans  from The Gospel Coalition in various formats including RSS, mobile & ical (whatever that is!).

I like the look of Stephen Witmer's plan because it covers both OT & NT in 2 years with oh so realistic 'catch up days'! (much better than trying to read both OT & NT in 1 year because you're more likely to have time to reflect on what you've read).

Luke 1. 1-5

This is a bit of a trial. Here's a re-recording of a sermon on Luke 1:1-5 and 1 John 1. Unfortaunately, I've not been able to configure an audio player within Blogger yet (if anyone can help...), so you'll need to download the file and then play it with any audio player.
Because I re-recorded it at home, it doesn't have the same feel as a 'live' sermon and the quality of the audio isn't great, but I've heard worse!

Luke 1.1-5.wma

Books to give away

People often ask me if I can recommend a book for a friend who is asking about Christianity. Here are a few suggestions - if you have other suggestions, please add a comment.

The most important thing is to get people reading the Bible itself. But to give someone the complete
 book can be very daunting. So why not give a New Testament or an individual gospel?
You can buy an ESV NT for just £1.50   or the NIV for £2.99

Individual gospels are available singly or in packs of 20 if you've got lots of friends!

If you decided to give away Mark's gospel, a good companion would be Tim Keller's King's Cross which explains the message of Mark.


The God Who Is There,  "In this basic introduction to faith, D. A. Carson takes seekers, and new Christians ... through the big story of Scripture. He helps readers to know what they believe and why they believe it."
 The book is based on a series of talks which can be seen & heard on the Gospel Coalition website, or on Vimeo.

John Stott's Basic Christianity was first published over 50 years ago, but is still one of the best explanations of the Christian message. It's a book for the keener reader.

Perhaps an easier book to read is John Chapman's A Fresh Start


Of course the old classic is C S Lewis, Mere Christianity. The book is not without its faults (e.g. Lewis was a 'high-churchman' and at times the book is rather 'religious'), but for a Lewis fan, this is a great gift.

Tim Keller has written some fantastic books, and The Prodigal God, is a brilliant, very readable explanation of the grace of God from the parable of the lost son in Luke 15.


Over to you - add more titles... (as editor, I always reserve the right to edit!).

Open up the Bible video

[]

Open the Bible

Has your Bible reading dropped off the radar?

Has your Bible reading ever really got going?

Have a look here and be encouraged!

A sure and certain faith

Luke 1:1-5 & 1 John 1:1-10

For many people, 'faith' is a belief that's not based on evidence - a leap in the dark.

And the BBC with its beloved atheists like Sir David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox, is doing a brilliant job of persuading vast numbers of people that to believe in God is a stupid, ignorant, superstitious thing to do.

To these lovely, kind, tolerant rationalists, Christians are... well, let me read to you from the introduction to the 'new atheist' website.

“Tolerance of pervasive myth and superstition in modern society is not a virtue.
Religious fundamentalism has gone main stream and its toll on education, science, and social progress is disheartening.
Wake up people!!  We are smart enough now to kill our invisible gods and oppressive beliefs.
It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance.”

What I want to do this morning is to say that we Christians need to 'Wake up!' and get smart about the true nature of our belief so that we can resist the attacks from the aggressive, pervasive and truly intolerant fundamentalism of this new religion called atheism.

And first of all we need to realise that Christian faith is not based on superstition or myth. It is not a leap in the dark.

It is based on sound evidence coming from many sources – history, rational explanation of the world we live in and experience, science and nature.

So what evidence do we need to believe something is true?

The atheists seem to think that evidence only comes from their microscopes, telescopes, scanners and hadron colliders.

But there are many valid forms of evidence – and each form of evidence is suitable in its own sphere of knowledge & belief.

So, yes, if you want to discover a new planet 600 light years away, then you need NASA's Kepler space telescope.

And if you want to discover something new about particle physics you may need a large hadron collider.

But neither of them were any use whatsoever to us 12 members of the jury at Maidstone Crown Court when we were deliberating on a rape case in which there was no forensic evidence.

We had to rely on the evidence of witnesses. And on that basis we made a reasoned decision.

And this has been happening up and down the country this week, and everyone accepts that on the basis of eyewitness evidence, you can come to a decision 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Is that a 'leap in the dark'? Is that an irrational belief? Absolutely not.

Now tell me, would you believe me if I told you that in August 1875, a man called Matthew Webb covered his body in porpoise grease and, fortified by cod liver oil, beef tea, brandy, coffee and strong old ale, became the first person to swim the English Channel?

You may doubt my knowledge, but if I told you that this was taken from a report in the Guardian newspaper of 26 August 1875, you would, I guess, trust that this was a reliable, believable event in history.

It is no leap in the dark to believe that this actually happened even though we weren't there, we didn't see it, it wasn't filmed, and there's just a posed photo which could easily be a fake. PPT

But it's rational and sensible to believe that this happened. The evidence is sound, though not strictly speaking scientific.

So evidence comes in different forms - and it's not always the product of a laboratory.

Of course, there are superstitions and irrational beliefs.

But the reason I'm a Christian is because I was brought up to believe the evidence. And the evidence for Xy is, for those who bother to investigate, beyond reasonable doubt.

So how confident are you in you Christ? Give yourself a mark out of 10...

Theophilus was a wealthy and influential man living in 1C Israel. He had heard astonishing – barely believable – things about a man called Jesus, and he wanted to be certain about the truth.

And so Luke – a learned man, a doctor – was either commissioned by Theophilus or took it on himself to write an account of the things that had happened in their days and in their part of the world.

These events had happened recently enough that people were still talking about them, still wondering what they meant.

But Luke wasn't the first person to write about what had happened. Already, just a few years after the events, a number of people had written down what had happened.

These things that had been 'accomplished' (not 'fulfilled', v1 – Luke's not saying here that these events were fulfilments of the OT) were so astonishing, so unusual that many people had spent money on expensive papyrus scrolls, pens and ink to painstakingly write down what had happened.

Verse 2 tells us that these people have taken eye-witness statements. But the sceptic will point out that these so-called eye-witnesses were biased – they were servants of the message.

And Luke admits it. The only reason we know who his eyewitnesses were is because he tells us.

If Luke was Involved in some kind of conspiracy, if he knew it was all fake but was trying to claim it was real, then he'd hardly admit that his eyewitnesses were biased – but that's precisely what he does do!

And in any case, the phrase, 'servants of the word' may not be a comment on what they believed so much as what they did in writing down their accounts – the mere act of writing down what happened was an act of service to the message, whether or not they believed the message.

There are various theories about the documents that Luke refers to here.

It could be Matthew or Mark because they contain much of the same material – sometimes word-for-word the same – and Matthew was certainly an eye-witness. Mark probably got his information from the apostle Peter.

But then there's also some parts of Luke that aren't in either Matthew or Mark, so Luke must have had at least one other source for that information, and probably more than one.

(John's gospel covers almost entirely different events in Jesus' life and was probably written quite a bit later than the others.)

So, says Luke, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account.

For Luke, the historicity of the events is integral to their meaning and significance.

If Jesus did not do and say the things people were claiming he did & said, then there was no religious or theological meaning or significance to them whatsoever.

And it's not just Luke who thinks this way: all of the Bible's authors admit quite openly that Christianity stands or falls with the facts of history – with events that actually happened.

So, in 1 Cor 15, Paul says, 'If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.'

Now one objection is that these events are simply unbelievable – they cannot have happened because they don't happen today.

Well, of course they don't happen today. The whole point of Jesus' coming is that it was unique because he is unique.

If the events of Jesus' life happened every day, he would just be an ordinary man without significance, and no-one would have bothered to write up his life!

But perhaps, people say, Luke and the others made up the miracles and the resurrection.

If they'd done that, there were plenty of people still living who could have denied what had happened. They didn't!

If the Romans or the Jews had taken Jesus' body, why didn't they just produce it and say – 'Don't be stupid – he's not alive, and here's his body to prove it.'?

If Peter and hundreds of others knew that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, why were they prepared to die for a lie?

The evidence for Jesus stacks up.

And so, says Luke to Theophilus, you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Faith need not be a leap in the dark.

It need not be an irrational belief against all the evidence – though, of course, some beliefs are irrational and deny the evidence.

And the superstition of atheism is on the march today – and it has Xy in its sights.

Christianity is the only rational, sensible, evidence-based belief.

But because the events of hx are so extraordinary, because they are clearly from God, they demand a response.

And in 1 John, we hear what that response must be – page 1225.

In verses 1-4, John states that he and others have heard, seen and touched the Word of life – Jesus, who came from God.

And then from v5 he declares the message that Jesus taught:

“God is light in him is no darkness at all.” Light and darkness are, of course, universal images for truth and lies; good and evil.

So John's saying that Jesus' message was that God is truth and goodness. God has no dark thoughts, no bad motives, no lies to hide, no behaviour that is in any way wrong.

But, v8, if we dare to claim that we're like God and have no sin – that we have no dark thoughts, no bad motives, no lies to hide, no behaviour that is in any way wrong - then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us at all.

No, the truth is that we have done wrong in every area of life.

And that wrong – that sin – begins with our wrong beliefs: our rejection of all the evidence that points to the truth – the truth that Jesus Christ was God-made-man.

For some people this 'sin' is laughing at the very idea of God and setting up websites that demand the abolition of belief in God.

For others the 'sin' is just laziness. They can't be bothered to find out about Jesus, and don't want their life disturbed by him anyway.

And very often, underlying this rejection of God, is a deep-seated commitment to living life their own way and not wanting any interference from God.

And they transfer their dislike of God onto Christians – or God-botherers as Dawkins likes to call us - because we're an easy target.

And if you don't believe me that we're now the target for the new atheists, and if you don't believe that they're on a crusade against us – have a listen to Radio 4's 'The Infinite Monkey Cage' series, hosted by Brian Cox.

Or try to find truthful and positive comments about Christians and Xy coming from the BBC or the newspapers.

But John's message in v9 is that we need to admit our ignorance, our arrogance and our rebellion against God.

We need to confess that we have deliberately rejected the evidence for Jesus.

And when we do that, when we admit our guilt to him, we have the wonderful assurance that God is merciful and will forgive us and accept us and purify us so that we can have fellowship with one another and with him.

But, v10, if we persist in our arrogance and continue to claim that we're right in the face of all the evidence that God has given us, and that there's no such thing as sin, then we've called God a liar, and his life-giving word can have no place in our lives. Not now, not ever.

We have consigned ourselves to eternity without him. To an eternity where everyone sets themselves up as master of their world, and so condemns themselves to an eternal battle with everyone else.

And that's not some empty threat to keep people in order as the anti-God squad claim, it's the simple truth and the inevitable consequence of our actions and of who God is.

The choice, as they say, is yours.

Lamenting our sin

Lamentations is probably one of the least read OT books with its long descriptions of how God's wrath has afflicted Israel.
As you read of the horrors perpetrated against men, women and children (e.g. Lam 2:11-12), you want to think that this is all the responsibility of the Bbylonians, but then you read Lam 2:1ff, and you have to face the fact that, somehow, God stands behind all this - in 2:1-19 we read twenty-six times that the LORD has done this. Then in chapter 3, the author gets personal; it's not now unknown Israelites who suffer, but our author himself who is in agony under the LORD's hand (Lam 3:1-18).
But then there's the most astonishing - shocking - turnaround (Lam 3:19-25).

Now I bet you recognise verses 22f:

The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases;

his mercies never come to an end;

they are new every morning;

great is your faithfulness.

We love to recite that, but as is so often the case with 'nice' OT verses, we've completely forgotten the context - the horrific context - the context of God's unleashed wrath against a faithless, idolatrous, disobedient people. And not just any people, his own covenant people.
But even if we do remember the context, how do we read this as NT, post crucifixion believers? Are we to say, as a young and sincere Christian once said to me, that my suffering (a slipped disk, in my case) was due to a specific sin, and I must confess it in order to be healed? In other words, does God punish our sins and wait for us to repent?
Perhaps the words from the service of the Lord's Supper can help us here. Cranmer (who wrote the original service) was clear about the seriousness of our sin. Having read the commandments to remind the people of their sin, and having read long exhortations and reminders of the seriousness of sin, the minister then leads the congregation in the confession:

ALMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

But then, the minister reads the reassuring words of Scripture:

Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith unto all that truly turn to him.

COME unto me all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. Matthew 11.28
So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3.16
Hear also what Saint Paul saith :
This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. 1Timothy 1.15
Heare also what Saint John saith:
If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 2.1

And then, in the prayer of thanksgiving, he reminds us again of the completeness of our salvation:

ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world...

In all of this Cranmer was reflecting the clear message of the promises of the OT (e.g. Jer 31:34) and the NT that the punishment for sin fell on Christ so that it does not fall on us. So, returning to the question of the cause of our suffering, we see that it cannot be due to God's punishment for our sin - that was fully dealt with at the cross by Jesus.
However, there is another strand in the NT, and that is the Lord's discipline. The classic text for this is  Hebrews 12:4-11, but in Romans 5:1-5 we see that Paul first insists that we have peace with God before then explaining the cause of our suffering - to produce endurance, character and hope.

So our experience of God is different from that of the OT people of God. They experienced God's wrath for themselves, in the hope that they would return to God and receive his love and mercy. And as we read of the horror of being under the wrath of God, we should remember two things. First, it's a picture of hell, and second, it's a picture of what Jesus suffered for us.
And this should spur us on to praise and thank the Lord Jesus for his sufferings on our behalf, offering our whole lives to him in worship and adoration as a 'living sacrifice' (Rom 12:1). And it should remind us that our loving Father disciplines us for our good and for his glory, that we might be more holy and better reflect the image of Christ.

Eldership & humility

1 Peter 5:1-7

Day-by-day, week-by-week many of you are under pressure because of your faith and commitment to Jesus Christ.

It may be that the pressure comes from an unsympathetic boss; or from non-Christian family members; or from friends; or from the government.

But when the tide of the world is against us, God fills our sails and carried us forward:

• 2:21-24 – looking back to the cross & the example of Jesus
• present privileges 2:9f
• 4:8-10 – being part of a loving, serving & hospitable church encourages us today & points us forward to the great banquet in heaven.
• 1:13 – hope of the return of Jesus

And now in ch 5 we see how, through a well-ordered and properly led church, God puts more wind in our sails and helps us to keep going.

In vv1-4 he speaks to the 'elders'.

Verse 5a is to 'young men'

And then in vv5b-7 he speaks to everyone.

First of all then, elders.

Now, if you're reaching for the 'off' button because you don't think you're an 'elder' please don't - stay switched on – this is important for us all!

First Q: What is an 'elder'?  Well the word is used in two ways in the Bible. 'Elder' may refer to an older person – male or female. We see this in v5, though it's not obvious in our translation: 'Young men, in the same way, be submissive to those who are older' The word translated 'those who are older' is 'elders' - the same word as in v1.

So 'elders' may simply mean those who are older.

But in other parts of the Bible, 'elder' refers to a man appointed to a formal position of authority. So Paul & Titus appointed 'elders' in every church. These may have been older men – they probably were – but what we know for sure is that they were men who met the criteria for church leaders, some of which Peter now sets out here.

So it seems as though in vv1-4 'elders' means church leaders. But, as I said, we all need to know what's expected of those called to leadership in God's church and why they do what they do.

Over the years, church leaders have developed a wonderfully complicated array of sometimes pompous titles for themselves – well, we all like a good job title, don't we?! So, in the protestant churches, we have bishops, elders, vicars, rectors, clergy, pastors, ministers, presbyters, deacons, curates, priests, deacons, archdeacons, precentors, deans etc. Many of these titles overlap – so, for example, people would call me all sorts of names(!) including clergyman, vicar, incumbent and priest. And as far as the C of E is concerned, all are correct, though few of them are helpful or accurate in describing what church leaders ought to be or do.

But in the bible, the titles do exactly that – they reflect the sort of people leaders should be or what they should do. So, in v2, elders are to 'be shepherds'... 'serving as overseers'. Or we could translate it, elders are to be pastors... serving as bishops. But the words 'pastor' & 'bishop' don't really tell us anything whereas 'shepherds' & 'overseers' are much more descriptive:

Church leaders should 'shepherd God's flock that is under their care' and the shepherd had two key jobs – to feed his masters sheep and to protect his master's sheep.

So the elder in the church must feed God's people with the spiritual food of the word of God, the Bible. And he must protect God's people from false teaching. The shepherding image is not cuddling little fluffy lambs, but feeding them good food and protecting them from wolves and thieves who threaten to kill and to steal.

So when I was ordained, I was told to 'instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing but that which may be concluded and proved by Scripture' – i.e. to feed God's flock by preaching the word of God. And to, 'be ready with all faithful diligence, to banish & drive away all erroneous & strange doctrines contrary to God's word.' - i.e. to protet God's flock from those who would teach dangerous things.

This is important because we can only know God by knowing his word, the Bible. And it's only by knowing God himself that we can be the people God has called us to be. Being captured by 'erroneous & strange doctrines' will mean that you think you know God when in fact you've been fed a pack of lies about him and don't know him at all.

You need to know the truth about God. And the responsibility of elders is to ensure that you're taught the whole truth & nothing but the truth.

And elders must perform this ministry willingly, v2. They mustn't be forced or coerced into it. No one can teach people effectively if they don't want to do it. We've all suffered at the hands of school teachers who have lost their love of the job but can't do anything else, and that must never happen in God's church – his flock is too valuable to be fed and protected by someone who doesn't want the job. 

Likewise, no-one should be an elder because they're greedy for money. Of course, no-one becomes a C of E clergyman to get rich, but that's not really the point here. The point is that the elder shouldn't be looking for easy money but should be “eager to serve”, v2.

Some years ago I asked a fellow vicar if he was busy, 'Oh no', he replied, 'there's plenty of time for horse-riding.' He wasn't eager to serve, but eager to go hunting.

And so, v3, elders are called to serve God's flock and not lord it over them because God's flock is entrusted to them.St Peter's is not my church it's God's church – you are his sheep. I am simply one of the elders appointed to care for the sheep who are entrusted to us.

Speaking personally, the idea that you are God's flock but under my care is a heavy responsibility, and one I feel very acutely. But fortunately – for you & me – it's not all down to me. Eldership is always plural – I serve alongside Cliff Nay & Richard Akehurst and others – and even more importantly, v4, Christ is our Chief Shepherd.

As if to counterbalance the weight of responsibility on the elders, Peter reminds them of the promised 'crown of glory that will never fade away' when the Chief Shepherd appears. Of course this isn't something special for elders – remember how Peter began the letter with the promise of a glorious inheritance for every true believer – but elders also need to be encouraged to keep going!

And now Peter turns his attention to the young men – or rather, the 'younger men' – all the men who are younger than those who are older – so that could mean every man here this morning because our oldest man is Albert, and he's unable to be here!

Younger men, in the same way – i.e. with eagerness and willingness, because you want to, not because you have to – be submissive to those who are older.

We've already looked at this issue of submissiveness and how it is based on the example of Jesus who submitted even when insulted, taunted, beaten and killed – and that he submitted without retaliation. Now hopefully, our seniors won't insult or beat us! But the point here is surely that even if younger men are provoked by their elders, they should never retaliate, but rather submit with good grace.

Too many churches are characterised by age-wars – the younger generations fighting against their elders, usually over the style of music. Thankfully we don't have these problems at St Peter's, but we mustn't take it for granted.

Indeed, says Peter, all of you are to clothe yourselves with humility towards one another because, God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may life you up in due time.

Humility is the characteristic of Xy and of every Christian. In fact, if you're not humble, God opposes you, so humility before God is essential if you're to have any kind of relationship with God at all. Without humility, God opposes you.

So what is humility?

Humility is remembering who we are and who God is.

It's remembering what we are and what God is.

And it's acting appropriately in the light of this truth.

So, says Peter, 'Humble yourselves under God's mighty hand' Of course God doesn't have hands – or feet, for that matter – but to say that God has a mighty hand is to say that he has power and authority to create and to rule. So Psalm 89 says,

Let the heavens praise your wonders, O Lord,

your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!

For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord?

Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord,

a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones,

and awesome above all who are around him?

O Lord God of hosts,

who is mighty as you are, O Lord,

with your faithfulness all around you?

You rule the raging of the sea;

when its waves rise, you still them.

You crushed Rahab like a carcass;

you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm.

The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours;

the world and all that is in it, you have founded them.

You have a mighty arm;

strong is your hand, high your right hand.

This is who God is and this is what God does.

To be humble is to acknowledge that we do not have this kind of power, authority, wisdom, faithfulness or righteousness. Humility acknowledges that 'no-one can be compared to the Lord' – least of all me! In fact humility goes further and says, 'Not only am I not as great as you, O Lord, in fact, I am a pathetic rebel. I've kicked you off your throne, and I try to be god of my own little world. And I even fail to do that properly.'

Humility says, 'O Lord, I know you made me, and I owe you everything. Please forgive me. I will serve only you for you alone are my God.'

But this is not just some kind of never-ending guilt trip as some accuse Christianity of inducing. For Peter goes on, 'Humble yourselves under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.'

The same mighty hand of God that bangs down the gavel of judgement, is also stretched out and nailed to the cross to bring us mercy, forgiveness & reconciliation.

These hands of God that hurled stars into space also picked up children and sat them on his knee.

The same mighty arms of God that stretch across the heavens, are opened wide to welcome us home as his children.

This same God who stands over all time and eternity, says to you this morning, 'When you're anxious, cast all your worries on me because I care for you.'

So humility isn't such a bad thing after all! The world may not value it, but God does, and when humility characterises a church family like ours, it's a beautiful thing.

In a community of pride & arrogance each individual is trying to elevate him or herself. In a community of humility, each person is elevated by everyone else.

And when we humble ourselves before God, even he lifts us up! What a great church we have. What a great God we have!