The Forgotten Father

The title of this post takes its cue from a book written by Tom Smail (1928-2012) on the first person in the Trinity, God the Father, a study, which I heartily recommend.

Smail had a Church of Scotland background but later entered the Anglican ordained ministry; he was evangelical, and charismatic (but with reservations later in his career) in churchmanship.

He was a learned theologian and a godly man who wrote with care about church teachings-practices which he believed were becoming lopsided in emphasis.

He believed that in evangelical and charismatic circles an over-emphasis on the Son and the Spirit with a corresponding under-emphasis on God the Father¹ was in evidence.

One can only speculate why this state of affairs might have arisen. I suspect it began with revival² movements which also affected Australia in the mid-1850s and also into the 20th century.

Song Affects Christian Living 

It's well to remember that the manner in which any church group sings influences their living, sometimes even more than what is preached! The Wesleys back in the 18th century knew that and the Wesley hymns are rich doctrinally because they understood hymn singing to be educational!

The revivalist movements became evangelistic, usually mass evangelism, and produced songs, choruses and hymns. These tended to push the Lord Jesus into greater prominence than had been the case before their development. I guess they took this action for both biblical reasons and because they were reacting to liberalism and modernism which had all but denied the sacrificial and miraculous work of Christ incarnate. 

Hence, these newer movements (rightly) sang much about Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to place the work of Christ's redemption at the centre of the plan of reconciliation.

Unfortunately, a decline in the prominence of God the Father ensued. (Maybe this change was also affected by the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements which emphasised the Holy Spirit, and Jesus as the baptiser with the Holy Spirit.)

Who is Jesus?

Every one of the gospel accounts is concerned with this question and every one of them answers it. Each one shows how Jesus is bonded to his Father in heaven.

For example, the declarations of the Peter about Jesus point to his relationship with God.³ One records, 'You are the Christ' (Mk 8.29); another says, 'You are the Christ of God' (Lu 9.20); and a fuller account adds, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Mt 16.16). 

In the fourth gospel, the writer says of his record that it is a call to believe, 'that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God' (Jn 20.31).

We find in John's account, the question about Jesus answered in some detail in chapter 1 verses 1-18. As the Word (logos) he is 'with' God and is God (Jn 1.1c). And further, Jesus is the 'only begotten of the Father' (Jn 1.14) and 'in the bosom' (Jn 1.18), inseparable from God the Father.

To that witness can be added the human witness of John the Baptist (Behold the Lamb of God!)(Jn 1.29a, 36) and then the initially sceptical Nathaniel calls Jesus, 'the Son of God, the King of Israel' (Jn 1.49). 

Following that comes Jesus' own witness to Himself, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man' (Jn 1.51; Dan 7.13-14).

To be 'Christ', 'Messiah' is to be anointed for a calling and task by the Holy Spirit; and in these references, it is God's own Son who has been called to the vocation of freeing his people from the bondage of sin.

My point is that Jesus is always one with the Father even when he is in the garden of Gethsemane and even when he is on the cross.⁴ The cross and all it entailed was done according to 'the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God' (Acts 2.23).

Jesus, The Way To The Father

My plea is not one urging Christians to reduce their devotion to the Lord Jesus -hardly- but in perhaps taking up the challenge of reading the fourth gospel to see how Jesus constantly refers to his Father directly.

Jesus is the only Way but to where? Jesus is the only way to the Father (Jn 14.6) through the power of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3.5).

If that is so, we should also ensure that we don't become 'Jesus people' alone but disciples of Christ our Lord giving all the members of the Godhead their rightful places as revealed in scripture; and at the same time, emphasising the unity of God (Deut 6.4; 1Tim 1.17; 1Jn 4.7).

1. Interestingly, 'western' Christians (Catholics, Protestants) tend to emphasise the oneness of God over the three-ness of God -the reverse being the case in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Pentecostals and charismatic Christians don't always self-identify with Protestantism so I'm not so sure they can be easily classified using these categories.
2. 'Revival' is chiefly about the renewal of an existing but dying or dead church. However, revival of the church frequently leads to others outside the church's meetings being drawn into the Faith through active evangelism.
3. In the NT, the Father is typically called 'God' (e.g., Jn 17.3; 2 Cor 13.14); less often are the Son (Jn 1.1; 20.28; Rom 9.5; 1 Tim 3.16; Titus 2.13), and the Spirit (Acts 5.3-4).
4. Despite the strange doctrine taught today that God 'left him'! We need to examine Psalm 22, the psalm from which Jesus is quoting, and realise that to quote the first line of a psalm as He did is to invoke the rest of the psalm as well. But furthermore, this psalm is a Messianic psalm! That's the major point involved in Jesus' citing it on the cross. He is saying in effect, 'I am the Messiah!'. Christians should read through the entire psalm, carefully noting the details. In particular, we need to note how the psalm ends.

Implications if all Christians viewed themselves as Full-Time Ministers*

Jesus said to his followers 'you are the light of the world' (Matt 5.14). Note he didn't say, 'should be', 'were to be', 'better be', 'could be' but are.  

Christians are now the light of the world (Phil 2.15) because they are in Christ who is The Light of the world (Jn 8.12). The Christ who is within all Christians by the Holy Spirit's presence ensures that Christians everywhere shine as light in the world.

They shine not only in 'churches' on Sunday but in every area of life where legitimate human endeavour takes place all through the week. They do that in marriages, families, 'para-church' organisations, neighbourhood groups, art groups, businesses, scientific research, professions and trades of every kind, farming, recreation, entertainment, and in all other activities 'too numerous to mention'.

Implications

The main point is that the LDc should do its job to prepare all the saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4.11) out in the world in all the various areas that I have listed above and more. Correlatively, the LDc should not try to be a political group, or run a business, or imagine it is a family, or indulge in too much entertainment. It's main focus is Word and Sacrament so that the saints are empowered for ministry (service) in all non-church areas during the week.

This thought is implicitly in the people's words after Communion in the Anglican** church's liturgy:

'Father, we offer ourselves to you
as a living sacrifice
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Send us out in the power of your Spirit
to live and work to your praise and glory. Amen. (emphasis mine)'

Second, it should restrain itself from grabbing all the saints' time so that they have the opportunity to pursue the Lord's business outside the confines of the church's ambit. Some churches even boast how they have a meeting every day or evening! No wonder the Body has so little impact on societies in which they live!

Perhaps some church ministers should work part-time in the church and part-time outside so that they remember what the church is actually there for.

Third, the congregational-structure ought to consider itself as an institution alongside other Christian associations working in the same vineyard. Being so, it should not suck up all the best talent found in the wider Christian community on the basis that 'the Lord should have the best available'! Of course, the Lord should but this comment is under-girded by a division of the world into sacred and secular. It understands the church to be in the sacred realm and therefore to be the realm along with missions deserving of the best. 

However, any realm can be sanctified by the presence of God's people unless certain civil societies make that impossible. In some societies the possibility also exists to develop separate structures*** to form Christian schools, or Christian home-schooling, universities, political groups, labour organisations, and etc.

I tend to favour the formation of separate associations in some cases (particularly in schooling). Such associations force our present society to reckon with the fact that Christian witness in the wider sense is public and not just private.

*I do realise that my title's aspiration will have varied applications for Christians depending on the country and political system they live within.
**The pity is one doesn't hear this emphasised in the Anglican Church.
***The Netherlands, at the beginning of the 20thC is an outstanding example of where this societal development took place. Unfortunately it didn't save this society from a severe deviation from the Word of God with respect to same-sex 'marriage' and other matters. However, I don't believe that its societal structure as such led to that deformation.

Jesus was NOT a good man (?)

Met another Chinese lady on Valentine's Day. She (S) is a high school pupil with excellent English doing year 11. She has a Christian mother.

I asked S about the Christian faith and she said openly that she wasn't a Christian. It seemed then I got a prompt to ask her about Jesus and she told me she believed he was a good man.

A good man? Just a good man? I missed a golden opportunity to follow up here (but the shop was busy and S was there to help for the day).

Jesus Was NOT a good man

Of course, all Christians believe he was good but Jesus was far more than just a good man. He was the Christ that the righteous in Jewry were looking for and that the unrighteous shamefully rejected. Moreover, he was the Son of God (Jn 3.16f).

Later, I thought about C. S. Lewis' comment that you can call Jesus many things but you can't say he was a 'good man' because this 'good man' accepted the title of the Son of God on various occasions (e.g., Jn 10.36-38). But good men tell the truth and if this man accepted the title of the Son of God (e.g., Matt 26.63-64) then he cannot be good. He was either deluded or a liar.

With his disciples he asked, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' (Matt 16.15-17). After getting the answers of 'John the Baptist', 'Elijah', 'Jeremiah', 'one of the prophets', he then asked the most important question for that age and this: 'But who do you say that I am?' 

Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God' (Matt 16.16). In his response, Jesus not only accepted that Peter was correct but said that Peter's answer had been revealed to him by 'My Father who is in heaven' (Matt 16.17).

Interestingly, Jesus didn't go around saying He was the Son of God very often. (But then neither does the Prime Minister of a country do so either because everyone knows it to be so and acts on the basis that it is so.) But the New Testament is pervaded with the understanding that in Jesus, God's Unique Son has come to earth and been called the Son of God by God at his birth, baptism and transfiguration. (See here.)

Faith and Believing Takes Practice!

Increasing our faith may take place during times when the presence of God is most evident. However, paradoxically, it is perhaps likely to take place when we are being sorely tested. It is at just those difficult times when we can learn to practise exercising faith when circumstances don't encourage us.

But we need to practise exercising it by remembering in whom we believe.

Mark describes the healings of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' outer garment and the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mk 5.21-43). In both these incidents of extreme affliction and sorrow faith is mentioned. To the woman with the haemorrhaging condition who had touched Jesus' garment in faith Jesus said, 'Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your affliction' (v 34); and to Jairus in the anguish precipitated by the news that his daughter had died, Jesus said, 'Do not be afraid; only believe'.

In both these people, faith was exercised in Jesus as the healer.

The common belief that just faith in faith is what is required is fallacious. I don't doubt that people may be helped or even healed by having faith in what they cannot name but God has been revealed in his Son and it is in the Son that we are required to have faith.

We are also to remember that it's not the strength or size of our faith that matters; it is the trustworthiness of the One in whom we trust . . . .

'for it is better to have a weak faith in a very strong bridge than a strong faith in a weak bridge' --words spoken by our priest-in-charge Heather Sunday last.

What is the Gospel? (1)

Scot McKnight believes that the question, What is the gospel?, is a crucial question for the church. He also believes the church to be confused about the 'real' answer to the question, the biblical answer.

I've not long finished a stimulating book by McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (2011).

Provocatively he argues that Evangelicals (those supposedly concerned about the evangel, the gospel, good news) today are not really evangelical at all! They are more accurately called soterians! (He's coined this word to denote those who are primarily concerned with salvation at the expense of the gospel.)

He believes that evangelicals--and included in this description would be many charismatic and Pentecostal churches as well--have built 'salvation cultures' (p. 29) rather than 'gospel cultures'. The two he affirms are not the same thing even though the former is part of the latter. Once might say that the gospel is the big picture whereas salvation is one of the smaller pictures within that.

So we might ask, So what is the gospel?


He's not quick to answer that until he mentions some of his concerns about modern-day evangelicalism and also the traditional, mainline denominations (one of which I attend).

Starting with the latter first, he says that to baptise babies or young children and then onto confirmation is leading to big problems. In many cases, the baptised are never brought back to church. Their parents don't ever bring them back and hence they never get the instruction preceding confirmation. The mainline, traditional churches generally as we know are slowly dying of old age. They often have 'members' of the church who have never personally believed on Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

But what is happening in the evangelical world is sometimes not much better! Although some sort of personal response is called for and made, those decision-makers don't always go on to become disciples. They come to church perhaps and worship but during the week their discipleship of Christ is lacking. For example, from personal experience I am been shocked by what some 'Christian' converts claiming to be 'born-again' imagine is acceptable moral behaviour.

McKnight does not believe that people should not be challenged to make 'decisions for Christ' and elect to believe on him as the Saviour of the world--what he calls 'the decided' group. But it should not stop there. The 'decided' need to be discipled, to be disciples of Christ.

And yes I know, we still haven't got to the answer to the question of what is the gospel. To do that, McKnight says, we have to distinguish (but not separate) four elements: the Story of Israel/the Bible; the Story of Jesus; the Plan of Salvation; the Method of Persuasion. McKnight states that Evangelicalism, and even Catholicism and Orthodoxy would align the gospel with the Plan of Salvation. Under that understanding, the Plan and the Method are often merged (but that is another issue).

He believes the Story of Jesus as it is embedded in the Story of Israel is essentially the gospel (particularly as we find it in 1 Cor 15.1-8) and in the historic creeds of the church (Apostles' and Nicene Creeds).

Next time I will give an outline of how he arrives at that idea and whether it is sustainable.

What Does Believing in Jesus mean according to John?

It is generally agreed by commentators that believing in Jesus as the Son of God plays a large role in the message of the gospel according to St John (Jn 1.12; 1.50; etc; Jn 20.31).

Interestingly however, on at least three occasions, believing in Jesus is held up to question in the gospel account. The first one I'd wager is not often preached on although its jarring note is consonant with some of what has already happened.

It's the passage found in Jn 2.23-25 : a number believed 'in His name' when they saw the signs that Jesus did. Nothing wrong with that; after all, the whole point of the gospel account is said to be a record of the signs, 'that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God' (Jn 20.31).

And yet, Jesus does not commit himself to these disciples in John 2 'because he knew all men and had no need that anyone testify of man, for he knew what was in man' (Jn 2.24f). What is going on here?

Other observers also have found that Jesus' non-committal behaviour grabs their attention and have proposed various interpretations. We don't like to think of Jesus being non-committal do we?

These believers (Jn 2) have trusted in Jesus but He does not entrust himself to them. I think I can only say that Jesus saw something lacking in their faith.

We see this lack again in the feeding of the five thousand story (Jn 6.1-14). The people who ate the bread and fish also testified that Jesus was 'truly the Prophet who is to come into the world' (Jn 6.14). But they wanted to make him king so he eludes them. Later he questions their faith and they can ask for a sign even though these are the same people who had been fed by Jesus (Jn 6.26)!

In John chapter 8, which opens with the woman taken in adultery (in the KJV) and leads to a sharp disagreement with the Pharisees (Jn 8.13-18). Than at v. 30 the text says, 'As He spoke these words [with the offended Jews], many believed in Him'. Jesus addresses some important words to them (Jn 8.31-32) about the attribute of true disciples (abiding or continuing in Jesus' Word).

However, now a question arises as to the identification of the 'They' at the beginning of verse 33; are these Jesus' new believers or are they the Pharisees?

I think the rest of the chapter is a disagreement Jesus had with those 'who believed' as set out in v. 30f. (I appreciate this interpretation is contrary to all of the classic commentator's views on the passage which causes me to concede that I may be wrong.) I would argue this position on two grounds:

Verse 31 says, Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him etc; verse 33, they answered him, 'We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage'. It seems at least to me that the 'they' is more naturally understood grammatically as the same group. Second, it's not as if such disagreement or ambivalence between 'believers' and Jesus had not happened before or after this. (Even after Jesus' resurrection with the resurrected Christ standing before the apostolic band, St Matthew records, 'some doubted' (Matt 28.16f). Admittedly, this doesn't occur in John's account.)

The fact that these hearers in John 8 are not abiding in Christ's Word is evidence that their belief is apparently on the surface. They had believed but that alone is not sufficient to argue that these 'believers' would not have disputed with Jesus as to their ancestry.

It seems that they resented the fact that called that they could be themselves in bondage. 'We like all the things you've been saying Jesus but we don't like to be said to have been in bondage. This implies that we are not Abraham's children.' Interesting that this chapter finishes with a climactic discussion on the topic of Abraham (Jn 8.52-59) and concludes with Jesus saying, 'before Abraham was, I AM' (v. 58).

However, should I be wrong about Jesus' interlocutors from verse 33 and onwards, the point remains that believing in Jesus means, at least in part, acceptance and obedience to His Word and continuance in His teaching. These are absolutely essential to true belief in Jesus as the Son of God.

OUT OF CONTEXT!

I don't know how often I've seen or heard the words of Jesus 'the truth shall set you free' quoted out of context. They are sometimes even used by those who have no commitment to Christ at all but even Christians forget or neglect to look carefully at the background in which the words occurs.

The words quoted are lifted out of a long conversation (Jn 8.30-59) Jesus had with those 'who believed him' (v. 31). And for at least two reasons, they are often misapplied.

First, these words were primarily directed to those 'who believed him'. In other words, a group of budding disciples of Jesus. They had listened to his words in the preceding interaction with the Pharisees (Jn 8.13-29) and these led them to believe in Him (v. 30).

The quoted words are preceded by Jesus saying to these new believers, If you abide in My word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free (Jn 8.31-32). If you abide in My word are critical words because they qualify what comes next. If any fail to abide, to continue in, to hold fast to what Jesus taught then then they don't come to know the truth that brings freedom.

The Revelation Of Christ's Glory

The marriage feast described in John 2.1-11 at Cana of Galilee ran out of wine and was in disarray.

We don't realise but this situation is a potential social humiliation for the bridegroom the shame of which will follow him all his days. His marriage feast will always be characterised as the one that ran out of wine!

Jesus takes the opportunity to meet this situation by providing a mighty sign, a superabundance of wine out of water and reveals his GLORY.

My key verse is Jn 2:11, 'This beginning of miracles [signs] did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested [revealed] his glory; and his disciples believed on him.' Let's focus on--
 
The Revelation of Christ's Glory 

When we look back in the gospel to John 1.14 it says, 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt [or 'tabernacled'] among us and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth'.

What does 'glory' mean to you? It's not easy to define. Honour, renown, esteem, fame, importance, eminence, celebrity, dignity, distinction, exaltation, grandeur, greatness, honor, illustriousness, immortality, kudos, magnificence, majesty, nobility, praise, prestige, renown, reputation, splendor, sublimity, triumph are some of the words suggested by it.  CS Lewis, the great Christian academic and writer said that 'glory' suggests 'luminosity'.

But the glory of God in Jesus Christ is of such a character that it can cause people to fall down (e.g., Rev 1.17; 2 Chron 5.14) because of its 'weight' (2 Cor 4.17) or just because the people realise in Whose presence they are. 

David Wilkerson, author of the famous The Cross and the Switchblade (who died last year incidentally) said that the glory of God is indefinable because it is 'the fullness of God'.

So the glory theme is found looking back to Jn 1.14 but also looking forward to John 17, a whole chapter framed around glory. In chapter 17 we find Jesus praying, 'O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was' (v5, words in italics mine).

1. The Revelation of Christ's Glory Changes the Ordinary
Jesus was The Sign of an Open Heaven (Jn 1.32, 51). When the heavens are open the extraordinary appears, the glory appears; and when the glory appears the ordinary is changed.

In the first four chapters of John's account, ordinary water gets changed in Wine; the Temple gets a makeover in Christ's Resurrection; ordinary birth becomes new birth and ordinary water by New Water or Living Water (Jn 4).

The glory was first revealed with creation 'the heavens declare the glory of God' (Ps 19.1). The glory was then seen in the glory cloud that led the people of Israel to the Promised Land. The glory was seen by the priests in the Tabernacle and then in Solomon's temple. After that, nothing is said about the temple and glory.

Do we realise that we ordinary people are going to share in Christ's glory one day too?

In one sense we already do because are we not already seated with him in 'heavenly places'?

But we are going to be gloried in a far greater sense when he comes in his glory with all his angels (Matt 25.31).

2. The Revelation of Christ's Glory Calls For A Response
The disciples believed on him when they saw this mighty sign of the water changed into wine. Does that strike you as being slightly odd?

It's the disciples on whom John focuses. I would have thought they had already believed on Jesus, wouldn't you?

What do you think?

Well, perhaps their faith as followers of Jesus was as yet ill-formed and indefinite; yet in seeing this sign their faith was raised to a new level.

This is no idle speculation because in the next pericope (Jn 2.13-22), the cleansing of the temple, Jesus' words about raising up the temple (his body) in three days John says of the disciples that after the resurrection, 'they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had said'.

What is John telling us by saying this?

It's the case that we followers, disciples of Christ Messiah, must deepen our faith in our Lord Jesus because he is the only way to the Father (Jn 14.6).


Listen to A Wonderful Song From The Salvation Army! Glory!

Hindu Woman from a Brahmin Family finds Salvation

This video is an inspiration and shows the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ over the powers of spiritual darkness.

The Trinity a Forgotten Teaching Among Worship Song Writers?

When I hear some recent church songs I wonder whether Christianity has become a Jesus-only movement!

Some songs talk about nothing else but Jesus. Of course we all love Jesus but the calling of the Son is to lead us to the Father.

I appreciate that the Trinity is heavy-duty teaching in so many ways because heretics stand ready to demote the Son to a mere creature and the Moslems want to relegate him to an inferior prophet to Mohammed. And Judaism sees him in even lower terms.

And Christians too claim not to understand it! Yet the teaching makes the Christian religion distinctive among all religions!

But we are Christians, followers of Jesus because he is God's son who reveals the Father through the power of the Spirit.

What we do in our songs/hymns we are likely to do in our prayers. So some will pray to the Son directly and never mention the Father. That's not the practice of the biblical writers who consistently pray to the Father through the Son in the power of the Spirit (e.g., Eph 1.16-20). Even the Lord Jesus in the Lord's Prayer teaches us to pray to the Father.

Why then do we find this poor hymnology that fails to get the persons of the Godhead in their rightful places?