From Hebraic roots to Greek philosophy! (Part 4)

And it's back into our Tardis for the fourth, and final, instalment of this brief look at the way in which the early church moved from its Hebraic roots, and mind-set, and adopted a Hellenistic mind-set instead. We’ve already looked in on the first Church Council, in Jerusalem – that historic Council that paved the way for Gentiles (most of my readers, and me) to become a party of the Body of the Christ. This time we are visiting a place named Nicaea, in Turkey, in 325 AD. We are in the Imperial Palace – which is probably the nearest we could find to a modern Conference Centre (but without the free wi-fi connection!).

Some 300 bishops (about 16% of those invited) are present – but only five of them are from the western church. There is no-one at all of Jewish descent – quite a change from that first Council in Jerusalem! Delegates seated in a semi-circle facing a raised dais. One man stands in the centre, behind a wooden lectern. To his left, is seated the Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria – chairman of the conference. Seated to his right is the Emperor Constantine, who had called the conference. Constantine – of whom it has been well said that “The ‘conversion’ of Constantine was the beginning of the end for the church.”

So, who was Constantine? He was a military emperor who worshipped the sun god, and relied on this deity for military success. The relevant moment in his life, as far as the church is concerned, was the Battle of Milvian Bridge, over the river Tiber, in October, AD 312, against the army of Maxentius. The story is that he had a vision of a cross – already established as the symbol of Christianity – in front of the sun, with the words: “In hoc signo vinces” – “In this sign, conquer”. The record is, it must be acknowledged, rather vague, but Constantine was, indeed, victorious in spite of having a smaller army than his rival and opponent. This battle left Constantine the undisputed Emperor of Rome – and Christianity, after years of persecution under Diocletian, the official religion of the Empire.

I am not going to bore you with the minutiae of the doctrinal decisions of the Council. However, there was one issue in which Constantine was not content to be a passive observer. This concerned the timing of the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus. There was, already, a growing animosity towards Jews, and moves to strip away all connection between the Crucifixion/Resurrection and the Jewish Passover which was the time when of those events had taken place. Constantine now read out a letter which he, as Emperor, was going to circulate throughout Christendom. The letter, were it to be sent today, would be considered, rightly, to be highly anti-Semitic. Here are just a couple of phrases to provide a flavour: “And truly, in the first place, it seemed … a most unworthy thing that we should follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity who, polluted wretches, having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds … … … Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews.” That sounds like something straight from the annual conference of the contemporary British Labour Party!!

So the Council – the first great Council of the Christian Church – validates a policy that is going to result in the persecution, and even attempted genocide, of the Jewish people for many centuries. It’s the start of a long slide away from the Jewish roots of the faith; and later Councils simply “put the boot in” again and again. Some 20 years later the Council of Antioch threatened excommunication for any Christian who celebrated Passover with the Jews. Twenty years after that, the Council of Laodicea extended that threat to all Jewish festivals, and to the weekly Shabbat. The Jewish roots of the Christian faith had been well and truly sliced away, and left rotting in the ground. Christianity had morphed into a Greek philosophical discipline – and it has been so ever since.

And what has been the practical outcome of all of this? It is that Greek philosophical ideas became the key to understanding the fundamental doctrines/teachings of the Church – the Body of the Lord Jesus, the Christ (Yeshua, HaMashiach). No criticism or regret – just unthinking (and blind!) acceptance; as if the pagan pollution of faith in Yeshua was somehow unavoidable; as if the Bible alone was insufficient for our understanding of Almighty God, and His dealings with mankind! So soon after the 500th anniversary year of the beginning of the Reformation, we do well to be reminded that the first of the five great “Solas” is “Sola Scriptura” – Scripture alone! (the others are Sola Fide - faith alone; Sola Gratis - grace alone; Solus Christus - Christ alone; Soli Deo Gloria - to the glory of God alone).

Plato’s dichotomy of body and soul – Soul = good; Body = bad – has effected how we see ourselves in God’s eyes.  So, if the body is bad, then anything connected with the body is also bad – particularly sex! So, those who followed “spiritual” careers are expected to be celibate – regardless of the fact that this is nowhere demanded in Scripture (although Paul does appear to have commended it!). This practice continues in Church of Rome – and, it could be argued, is the basic reason why that denomination has had to pay out a great deal of cash in compensation claims! Of course, sex outside marriage is, for the disciple of Jesus, a definite no-no! As, indeed, is the remarriage of divorcees whose spouse is still alive!

I'm not going to go into the whole business of the religious hierarchy that arose in spite of I Peter 2:4,9; etc. This was, in effect, a copy of Greek civil order. And then of course, there were the buildings – the first of which wasn’t even built until the 4th century at the instigation of (would you believe it?!) Constantine. Previously, the church – i.e. the people of God – had met in homes, as many once again do! But now, Christians were enticed out of their homes and, instead of being the church, they went to church! I have always loved the sign outside a particular church building in the city of Edinburgh. It reads, (if memory serves me well): "The home of Bellevue Baptist Church". Not the church, but the building in which the church - men and women and young people and children - meet! 

What I now hope to do is to share, from time to time, some well-known passages of the Tanakh - but look at them, as well as I can, through Jewish eyes; from a Hebraic mind-set. Do join with me as I do so. Your company will be most welcome.

From Hebraic roots to Greek philosophy! (Part 3)

Okay! After that slight detour, it's back into the Tardis! (If this is your first visit, I recommend that you read Parts 1 and 2, below, before continuing here!). This time we travel forward to the end of the fourth century/beginning of the fifth. There we may meet a man named Augustine, from a place called Hippo in modern Algeria. Augustine is considered by both Roman and Reformed theologians to be one of the most important figures, if not the most important, in the development of western Christianity. It was he who introduced idea of original sin; and our understanding of evil. But what is not always emphasisied is that Augustine was originally a follower of the heretical cult of Manichaeism – that promoted a form of dualism (remember Plato?!) with good v. evil; light v. darkness; body v. soul.

He also followed a tradition established by a Hellenistic Jew named Philo of Alexandria (c.20BC-50AD), and refined by Origen (185-254) in using allegory to interpret Scripture. When Jesus spoke in a parable, there was one main lesson; an allegory takes just about every point and ‘spiritualises’ it. So, for example, I was informed just last evening - in an Old Testament (Tanakh) example - that when David took five stones from the brook before facing up to the Philistine, Goliath, the four "unused" stones were for the killing of Goliath's brothers! Of course, even clainming that Goliath had four brothers is reading into a particular passage of the Tanakh what one wants it to say, rather than taking out of it what it says! That is "eisegesis" rather than "exegesis"!

Augustine declared that the Scriptures are inspired by God; but reinforced Origen’s idea that Jesus needs to be ‘shoe-horned’ all over the Tanakh – even if the fit is uncomfortable – and that allegorical interpretations are the way in which to deal with passages that are difficult! His approach was to say that, initially, we should look for the spirit behind the literal texts; to grasp the mind of God through spiritual understanding – even in passages that were quite obviously meant to be taken literally!

The last person we mention in this whistle-stop Tardis journey is a man named Thomas Aquinas – a 13th century Italian Dominican friar and theologian who combined the theological principles of faith with the philosophical principles of reason. His “hero” was Aristotle (whom, for the sake of at least relative brevity, we have "skipped over"!) and, in common with the Greek philosopher, he was keen on using the rational mind and senses alongside faith.

His ideas are best explained in his major, and most famous, work – Summa Theologica. This is a guide to all of the main theological teachings of the Church of Rome. Look at just one teaching, concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is the belief in the Church of Rome that, as part of the Eucharist/Holy Communion/celebration of the Last Supper, the bread and wine actually change into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, the Christ, on the altar – rather than the teaching of the Reformed churches that they are merely symbols. Aristotle taught that all matter is made up of an inner “substance” (which gives it its reality) and an outer “accident” (which gives it its appearance). For example, if we look at bread, it is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes - the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

What Thomas did was talk about the universally-held Doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist—the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ—in the language of the day. He said that, when the bread and wine are consecrated by a validly ordained Priest, the “accidents” (outward appearance) remain the same, but the inner “substance” (reality) of the bread and wine becomes the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Christ: i.e. “transubstantiation.”  Shades of, you may recall, Plato’s “Theory of Forms”!

So, back to earth! That was a very sparse outline of the way in which Greek philosophy infiltrated Christian theology and its Hebrew roots. To summarise: the ideas of Plato were refined by Philo (for a Jewish audience) and Origen (for a Christian audience). Thanks to Augustine, the father of the Western Church, they became thoroughly entwined with God’s revelation to us in the Scriptures. The ideas of Aristotle were added to the mix, and all was put together by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica.

In the next part, we shall, D.V., climb back into our "virtual Tardis", and move forward to the fourth century, A.D. See you then!! :-)

Two weddings, and a funeral.

It has been an unusually busy time for both my wife and me. As already intimated, my wife's mother died - a couple of weeks ago, now - and we had to fly back to Scotland for the funeral service. Then, having returned to Scotland on a Saturday, and been involved with the worship group in our French fellowship on Sunday, we commenced our next journey, by car, to Scotland on the Tuesday.  

It was while we travelled back, by air, that a wedding ceremony was viewed by, not only the hundreds of invited guests, but also by millions around the world through the benefits of modern technology. The couple involved were young; the bride was a divorcee (meaning that, according to the written Word of God, they are now living in a state of perpetual adultery - regardless of their personal lifestyles prior to the wedding!); and they had an archbishop and a bishop officiate at the ceremony.

The second wedding (and, for us, the real "wedding of the year"!) was between two octegenarians, each of whom had lived faithfully with a now deceased spouse and, indeed, each of whom had cared for that former spouse "in sickness and in health". The ceremony was conducted by their local Salvation Army Captain, and the number attending was less than one hundred. 

My mother-in-law's funeral service was conducted by a Baptist pastor who had visited her in the Care Home in which she had spent her last years on earth. There were, maybe, fifty people in attendance. Unlike the archbishop and the bishop, neither the SA Captain, nor the Baptist pastor are household names outwith their own immediate spheres of service.

When I arrived at our French church fellowship on the day following the 'big' wedding, I was met with excited reports of the sermon preached by the American bishop. It was, I was assured, a great message; a gosple message; delivered with charisma. I couldn't wait to listen to the recording!

However, the busyness of these past days meant that I have not had the opportunity - and now have no particular inclination - to listen to the aformentioned sermon. There have been too many reports that what was preached was "another gospel, that is no gospel" (see Gal.1:6ff). Rather than add  to the abundance of reports, allow me to merely reproduce some points made by David Robertson:

Some "... have commented that it was such a powerful message and it should get people to reading the bible. Still others that even if it wasn’t spot on we should take the Philippians 1:18 attitude “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.”. But that is the key question – was Christ preached? Was the love of Christ preached?

It wasn’t.

1) Firstly if it had been it would have been the first time that the preaching of Christ met with worldwide commendation! Everyone loved it – from the atheist Ed Miliband, to the LGBT activist Vicky Beeching. Liberal and Evangelical alike sang its praises. It was such a post-modern meaningless sermon that anyone could take any meaning they liked. Listen to what Jesus says: “Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26)

2) It was hypocritical.  Bishop Curry was at a wedding that upheld the traditional Cranmer prayer book (and biblical) view of marriage as being between a man and a woman – and which expressly said so. Yet he does not believe that – and has been active in getting the reference to procreation and to man and woman removed from the prayer book in his church. Incidentally his province is meant to be under the discipline of the whole Anglican Church, yet the Archbishop of Canterbury not only invited him but also enthusiastically endorsed him. Biblical Evangelicals within the Church of England have been well and truly shafted!   It is important to grasp that Liberals like Curry use words in different ways – we need to ask what does he mean by Jesus, love and the cross. We may be hearing one thing when he is saying another.

3) It was unbiblical – The sermon cited 1 John 4:8 out of context. I know that he did not have time to do all of this, but there is no way that the little he did say is reflective of the letter he took it from.   Just to mention a few things.

a) Sin – John sets the whole of the Cross-against the background of sin. Bishop Curry did not mention sin once. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (1:8).

b) The Atonement – John tells us that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. That forgiveness for sins comes from that. Jesus is the atoning sacrifice (the propitiation, turning aside the just wrath of God against sin) for our sins, and not only ours but the sin of the whole world” (2:2). This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters (3:16). This is love not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins (4:10).  When Curry spoke of the cross, it spoke of it as sacrificial, as exemplary, not as THE atoning sacrifice.  We too can be sacrificial and it is that sacrificial love that is redemptive and changes the world.   Can you see what he is doing? He is turning the cross from being THE redemptive work, to it being an example of redemptive love that we can all show. He is teaching us that we can save ourselves and indeed save the world by just having the kind of love that Christ had and following his example. That is not the Gospel. It is the antithesis of the Gospel.

c) Obedience – Obedience was left out of the marriage vows. It was also left out of the sermon. Which given that it was a sermon about love and love is defined as obedience in his text is a big miss! We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commands (2:3).   If anyone obeys His word, God’s love is truly made complete in them. (2:5). But the Bishop said nothing about obeying the commands of God. Imagine if he had said this – “This is love for God, to keep His commands” (5:3). Do you think for a moment he would have had such a positive response?

d) Loving the World was commended, not condemned – Do not love the world, or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them (2:15). See what great love the Father has lavished on us that we should be called the children of God! And this is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him (3:1). Bishop Curry made no distinction at all between Jesus and the world. So the world loved his message. If he had preached Christ, the world would have hated it. As it is the world loved his message, because it pushed all their buttons.

e) Beware False Teachers – Many antichrists have come (2:18). Do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work (3:7-8). Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. False teaching, false spirits, the devil being at work. Again none of that was mentioned.   The whole concept of evil and the devil's work was not part of the picture at all. But our battle is not against flesh and blood. Nor against Donald Trump. It is against sin, self and the satan.

f) There is a great division between those who know God and those who don’t. Whoever does not love, does not know God, because God is love (4:8). Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (5:1).  If you don’t know Jesus you are not born of God. And if you are not born of the God who is love, you cannot love in the way that John is speaking about.

Imagine if Bishop Curry had said to the young couple – “it’s great to see your love, but there is a greater love, and you really need to know that love. You need to know the God who is love. You need to trust and accept his atoning work of sacrifice. You need to show your love by obeying his commands (including being faithful to each other). You need to watch out for the evil in your own heart, and that from the devil. Always look to Christ “ But he didn’t (even though the Cranmer’s Anglican liturgy recognizes all those things); and he couldn’t because he does not believe that. He disobeys Gods word, denies his atoning sacrifice and does not teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

You can read the whole of David's article at

https://theweeflea.com/2018/05/21/bishop-michael-currys-sermon-a-distorted-gospel-divides-the-church/

There is also a link to an article by Gavin Ashenden, a former Chaplain to the Queen's Household, who resigned amid a row over a passage of the Qur'an, read out at Glasgow Cathedral, which denies  that Jesus is the Son of God, and God the Son. You may go straight to that article here:

https://ashenden.org/2018/05/19/michael-curry-the-royal-wedding-a-star-turn-offers-the-world-christianity-lite/

More and more, I am convinced that we are not only living in the "end times", but in the very "last days". I urge all who may read this post - be prepared. You will receive some guidance in previous posts, and from some of the links further down the screen.

From Hebraic roots to Greek philosophy! (Part 2)

Having just returned from Scotland, where my wife and I attended the funeral service for her mother, I am publishing this post quickly, as we return to Scotland on Tuesday for a wedding, and for our mid-year visit to family and friends.

If you haven't read the first instalment, I would recommend that you do so before you read this second part!

So, let's jump into our personal Tardis (I hope that you know at least that much about Dr Who!), and fly back some 400 years! Malachi, the last of the prophets whose writings are recorded in the Tanakh, has recorded his message – and then there is silence, until the angel Gabriel appears to a Jewish priest named Zechariah, and informs him that, in their old age, he and his wife, Elizabeth, are going to have a son.

But that 400 year-long gap is important. Malachi spoke of the coming of “… Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of YHWH comes.” (4:5). But there was no timetable issued! It was to be a long wait – and still is!

Meanwhile, Artaxerxes II was ruling the mighty Persian empire; the Romans were slowly building up their republic; the Carthaginians were suffering defeats – and, in Athens, a man named Socrates, the first great philosopher of the modern age, was soon to drink the hemlock that ushered him out of his controversial, and influential, life.

And it is on Greece that the spotlight shines during those years of silence. There were many clever people around; people who thought deeply about the world around them, and what made it tick. Following Socrates was his pupil, Plato, whose ideas were to become almost as influential as those of Jesus Himself in the development of Western Christianity – especially his “Theory of Forms”. This is something that is difficult to explain in just a few sentences but – here goes my attempt!

He explains that most human beings live as if they were in a dimly-lit cave. We are chained, and facing a blank wall, with a fire at our backs. All that we can see are flickering shadows playing across the wall of the cave, and this we take to be reality. Only if we turn away from the wall, and the shadows, can we hope to see the true light of reality.

Or, to put it in slightly more philosophical terms, Plato taught that everything we perceive around us – sailing-ships and sealing wax; and cabbages and kings – is merely appearance. The true reality is the realm of ideas, or Forms, from which this appearance derives. This true reality is perfection; what we see is but a poor reflection.

Plato did think that it was possible for a man to escape from the cave of shadows. Those who did would be the “guardians” – specially gifted and trained individuals; the philosophers, of course! These guardians would be rewarded by being granted a view of the “higher Good” – the source of all truth and reason

This “Higher Good” is the ultimate Form – top of the Forms. It is, effectively, Plato’s concept of God – an eternal reality that exists in a higher realm. Our senses are not equipped to see any more than a pale reflection of this “Higher Good”. Plato likens the concept (for this is not a ‘personal’ God, i.e. a God with personality) to the sun. Both, he taught, cause things to exist and grow; and both are sources of light.

Just one more important point (although we have missed out so very much). Plato believed that we are a body and a soul, but that these are totally separate entities, temporarily bound together during a person’s physical lifetime. This is the concept of the duality of man. In Plato’s view, the soul is good and the body is bad (again, this is the basis for some of the teaching of the later Gnostics). If you forget everything else I’ve just shared on Platonic philosophy, please remember this. It’s the Big Consequence of Plato’s Big Idea: Soul = Good; Body = Bad.

We're not even going to look at Aristotle, but merely mention him as a pupil of Plato, who may be thought of as the father of the academic discipline of logic, as he gave himself the task of thinking logically about every aspect of human life.

So, a brief summary of all of that: in the four-century gap, a whole flood of new ideas and ideals was pouring out from Greece – a Hellenistic mind-set as opposed to an Hebraic mind-set. I recently came across this comment in an SU Commentary on Revelation: “As soon as the Hebrew Christian was squeezed out of the church, and the OT was increasingly neglected, Christian theology was poisoned by this Greek concept.” That, I would contend, was the beginning of the corruption of the Body of the Christ! We'll move on in the next section!

From Hebraic roots to Greek philosophy!

Just today, I came across some notes that I had prepared for a series of talks on the topic: "From Hebraic roots to Greek philosophy!" Sadly, the group with which I had hoped to share those talks was unable to meet as regularly as had been envisaged, and the talks were never given.

As I read over them, I sensed that it might be of interest to some of those who regularly read these posts, to gain some insight into the topic. It is my plan, therefore, to share the notes - expanded, and in suitably-sized sections - on this blog. I hope that they will be helpful - and, perhaps, even eye-opening!

The plan was to look at some parts of HaTorah (the first five books of the Tanakh - the Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament in the Christian Bible) from a Jewish perspective – and to try to discover how they relate to the Brit Chadashah (the New Testament).  However, it is necessary to begin with a brief lesson in Church History in order to understand that the church, before it was too many centuries in existence, lost its Hebraic roots.

I began to realise this when a friend introduced me, some years ago, to the writings of a Messianic Jew (i.e. a Jew who accepts that Yeshua [Jesus] is HaMashiach [the Messiah]) by the name of Steve Maltz. It was his writings that made me realise how far the church has moved from the true Brit Chadashah church of the early apostles. I freely acknowledge my indebtedness to Steve Maltz, and also to another writer, Victor Schlatter, who has written in a similar vein although from a specifically Christian perspective.

I would not have had time to provide even a basic résumé of the six books that I have read - and certainly would not be able to do so on this blog! What I hope to share is only the scratch on the scratch on the scratch on the surface. But we start, as Novice Maria might say, at the beginning, because that’s a very good place to start (that only makes sense if you know the story "The Sound of Music"!).

The early disciples, of course, were virtually all Jews. After all, Jesus was a Jew, and He Himself told a woman of Syro-Phoenicia: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”! (Mt.15:24). The first nine chapters of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles centres around the apostles’ ministry to the Jewish people and to the conversion of Jews – including a Pharisee by the name of Saul - and Samaritans and Proselytes (converts to Judaism).

Then we come to ch.10, and a new phase in the spread of the Gospel through the conversion of the Roman centurion, Cornelius. Surely a time for rejoicing! Not according to Acts 11! "Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticised him, saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” But Peter began and explained to them ... ... As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptised with water, but you shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”" 

Fast forward to ch 15. Some of those who have become known as “Judaisers”, were still at work. "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question." This first major conference/summit of the leaders of the church had been convened to address one issue – the Gentile (non-Jew) problem! It was much easier when God was drawing believers out of only His ancient chosen people – and one or two who had “adopted” Judaism. After all, He was their God, wasn’t He? They were the custodians of the Law and the writings of the prophets; they were the children of the Covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; they bore the mark of circumcision. What did Gentiles know of the things of God?!

It had been a hard lesson – but that same God had made it abundantly clear, through Peter’s dealings with Cornelius, that even the Gentiles had a future in the plan and purpose of God! Perhaps they remembered the words of the prophets: “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (Is.49:6). 

You may read the record in Acts, but the end-result of this first Church Council was an open invitation, from the Jewish leadership to the Gentiles: “Jesus is for you, too. Let’s move forward together”. And most of the rest of the record in Acts shows Saul – now known as Paul – established as “the apostle to the Gentiles”, and his letters are to Gentile churches, most of which he, and his associates, founded.

Well, that's probably enough for this post but, if you are at all interested, do keep an eye out for the next "instalment"! There may, indeed, be some "eye-opening" information!!

Be prepared!

Although I was a member of the Boys' Brigade (and the Lifeboys, before they became the Junior Section of the B.B.), and held every rank except Sergeant and Captain, I have always liked the motto of the 'rival' organisation, the Boy Scouts: "Be Prepared".

I've been thinking of that motto over the past couple of weeks! There is a long story behind the situation, but we ended up agreeing to host a 14-year-old French pupil for just over a week, in order that her English language skills might be improved! What we didn't realise, at the beginning, was that this involved some formal tutoring - 20 hours! - as well as informal conversation. 

Well, I didn't spend all of those years in the classroom for nothing! So, a week or so before our guest was due to arive, I started gathering up what I decided would be appropriate lesson material. Then, last Friday, she was brought to our home by her mum. Lessons commenced shortly afterwards - and I discovered that I was not as well prepared as I had thought! She was much more advanced than I had been led to believe! I only wish that my command of her mother-tongue was as good as her command is of mine!

That why this blog has been neglected for so long. I have been kept busy preparing more appropriate lessons - on top of all of the other demands on my time (like preparing to preach, in French, on each of the next two Sundays!).

All of this has caused me to think about the preparation that each of us must make. Yes, I'm back to the topic of physical death. First of all, it appears to me that many do not even bother to make preparation for that inevitable event. In some cases, as I mentined recently, it is because of the "ostrich syndrome". "If I just bury my head in the sand, and cannot see it, this won't happen!" Others have decided that, while death is inevitable, it is also nothing more than annihilation - when we die, there is simply nothing!

There are many other attitudes to death, but the one that makes most sense, in my opinion, is that of the Christian faith. Please note that I did not use the word 'religion'! Religions are man-made. Both the Christian and Jewish belief systems have been revealed by the Creator God - YHWH Sabaoth; the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; and the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, the Christ. In the Christian faith, there is a simple truth: that "... it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment," (Heb.9:27). This life is not a "practice run". This is it!

So how prepared are you for that final judgment? Perhaps you are one of those who believes, sincerely, that if you chalk up sufficient "positive marks" to out-number the "negative marks" that you know you desreve, all will be well. Perhaps you think that if you give enough to charitable causes, that will ensure your entry to heaven. You may even believe that being a church member or, better still, office-bearer,  will attend to the matter. Sadly, that is not the Biblical position! Not one of us can work, earn, or buy our way to eternity in God's presence. 

Commenting on Ecclesiastes 9:1-9, David Robertson writes: "He [the Preacher] is saying that death comes to all, indiscriminately, good or bad: ... ... Death is not an accident – it is an appointment which only God can change or cancel. He [the Preacher] is not saying that we are to live passively or that we are not to prepare. But he is saying that it is only God who knows the future."

Of course, there are others who take the attitude of the rich man in Jesus' parable. Their philosophy is one of "Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry." (Lk.12:19). However, the parable continues: "But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'"

Be prepared! But ensure that you have made the right kind of preparation! It's not simply a matter of life and death; it's a matter of your eternal destiny!