No, What a Church Should Not Be...

Wow! What a week this has been. Are we in the UK beginning to see a light at the end of this long, dark tunnel? Or is the light ahead shining from another train some distance in front of us? And so, the headline of a newspaper blazes out that the rate on Covid-19 is falling, especially now that the vaccine roll-out is approaching 20,000,000 - around 27% of the UK's population of 66 million. On the same page, another article reads that the rate is actually rising again, hence popping the optimistic balloon of hope.

And so, I shared my concerns with the weekday Zoom prayer meeting. The response I received was that they were not pushing fake optimism, but rather seeing the numbers decline. This is encouraging to them and fan the flames of hope. Then another at the meeting reassured me that when, say, a move forward by three or four steps, one periodic step back is quite normal and to be expected. 

As far as I'm aware, the overall national infection rate is continuing to fall. However, the turnaround towards the wrong, upward direction looks to be mainly in the Midlands, such as Rutland, a landlocked county between Leicester and Peterborough, along with Bradley, Rochdale, Hartlepool, Leeds, Sheffield, Lincolnshire, and the South Coast port of Southampton.

Southampton.

However, with hospital rates continuing to fall across the nation and the corresponding fall of the death rate, especially among the elderly, this does indicate that the vaccine roll-out is beginning to take effect. Therefore, I may be not too surprised if the news carries a detail that, after more research, the rising rate of infections is more likely to be confined to people under 40 years of age, who are still waiting for their turn to be inoculated.

With glorious, spring-like wall-to-wall sunshine, caused by a wide circle of high pressure sitting over the UK, already, by mid-afternoon, the online papers are ablaze with the headlines that a large percentage of people, taking advantage of the good weather, are ignoring lockdown rules as they stream into parks and beaches. Not that I blame them at all. After all, if weeks of restrictions, cool and wet winter weather, many shops, pubs, coffee bars and restaurants closed, little wonder that "lockdown fatigue" has taken a hold on the majority of us, except for the few Covid Karens and Covid Kevins dotted around here and there - who are just too keen to pick up the phone to snitch on their neighbours enjoying a bit of fun outside.

Let's face it. Although the Police has warned of weekend patrolling of these outdoor venues to hand out fines to "the Covidiots" and disperse the crowds, nothing could be better for the immune system than to expose some flesh to direct sunlight, at least for thirty minutes, but here in the UK at this time of the year when the sun is not very strong, 45-60 minutes may suffice. As with me, before starting on this blog, I sat topless in our back yard under the warm sunshine for about thirty-forty minutes, reading the morning paper.

Yes, topless. Indeed, I may no longer resemble the Greek god Apollo (as I might have back in 1985-1990!) - this paunchy physique had benefitted without the casual tee-shirt I always wear, hence adding the sun's effort in producing Vitamin D to the other two sources: adequate diet and supplements, therefore, in addition to the first dose of the Oxford Astra-Zeneca vaccine, a suitable resistance (I hope) against the virus is built. 

This brings to mind the prudish attitude of Victorian England, where baring of the flesh was discouraged for the sake of decency. Little wonder that rickets was on the rampage, especially among children. This weakness of the bones resulting in bow-legs was caused by Vitamin D deficiency. Not to mention cardiovascular disease, cancer, asthma among children, and cognitive impairment, or dementia, among older adults.

During that time, those dark city winters with thick, coal-fuelled industrial and domestic fires emitting black smoke which hung in the air on a calm day, smog clouding out much of the sunlight during those cold and often damp mornings, together with the daily must-cover-up dress code, the Victorians made no connection between their meteorological and cultural environment - and the frequent rise of such illnesses. Who would have ever thought that such vitamin deficiency would bring such distress? Not to mention scurvy as well, caused by a lack of Vitamin C.

The dress code was founded on religion, mainly Christendom. Interesting for me it would be if all the medics under Queen Victoria's early part of her reign were to have discovered and agreed among themselves, that most, if not all of the illnesses rampaging through the city were caused by Vitamin deficiency, and particularly by the lack of the sunshine vitamin. And their remedial advice was to dress lightly during the summer, exposing areas of flesh to sunlight. Indeed, how would the population of the day react? Interesting indeed.

Would the authority of the Church have been questioned? Who knows. Would there have been a rise in atheism? Quite a point, that. Only last night I watched a YouTube documentary focused on the Bible Belt of the American Deep South, particularly in the States of Georgia and Texas. And to come clean here, I do not want to live in such an environment! Everything in life is centred around the local church. This includes the heavy stance against pre-marital sex, homosexuality, elective abortions, and evolution. Stern rules stand against non-Christian or secular music, and at school, each class begins with prayer. 

Divine Creationism is taught, but any evolutionary concepts are kept away from the students. And just as important as the rest, the moderate dress mode is mandatory. At first, all these issues look good, Biblical, and spiritually sound. But while I was watching the ad-free 40-minute video, I became aware of one underlining thought-stream - the feeling of insecurity, as if the whole system has to guard their participants against any form of threat, and that includes falling away, along with any teachings on evolution.

It's a kind of environment where, if a teenage offspring decides this lifestyle is not for them, then such a son or daughter would be disenfranchised from the rest of the family, particularly from the parents, and he would end up in Hell. As one chubby ten-year-old boy answered after he was questioned by the filming crew:

I'm afraid of Hell. If I were to leave my faith, yes, I'll end up in Hell.

I am a Creationist. But I also know a bit about evolution. In fact, as a teenager, I was a fan of the subject and I was free to study it. When I was converted to Creationism back in 1973, it was out of free choice and not by compulsion - the kind of choice which God always allows.

And talking about the moderate or smart dress, during my early years, I always had to dress in my Sunday best whenever my parents took me to church - and that was on special occasions, as they were nominal Catholics. Sunday Best consisted of a suit, a white shirt and tie. As I thought and felt, there was something seemingly unnatural about religion as a whole, although, just by itself, the smart dress would not have led to atheism as a mere single factor. Rather it was this, combined with the ongoing burden of earning my salvation by faith and works which, having proven unsuccessful, led towards my teenage hatred of God.

I have also noticed in the video, the men tend to be rather coarse in appearance, the Trump-voting, gun-toting, working-class male who would stop at nothing to condemn a gay man to perdition, and keep his own family under a strict regime, with an impression of his daughter discouraged, if not forbidden, to court a boy unless he first receives her father's approval. Then again, living in a warm part of the world, I have wondered whether this emphasis on dressing in moderation has led to lower Vitamin D levels, especially among the children. Furthermore and to my amazement, nearly all the men and many of the women shown on the video were also chubby, and not in the best of athletic fitness.

Why wouldn't I want to live in such an environment? Nor bring up my own children there?

Because, in the video, I saw little of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ in practice, despite much emphasis on this grace through faith. Rather, what I watched was salvation by works, with the promise of eternal loss if not remaining in line and staying true to the faith. What I also missed was love, the agape love which God has for us and we can have through the power of the Holy Spirit in us. That was absent in the video.

Yet, I have always had a deep respect for America as a country as a whole. Although the only time I passed through Georgia was in 1978 while on a Greyhound bus from Miami to New York in readiness to board my flight home. But earlier on that same trip, I remember the extremely flat and apparently barren landscape of Texas. The Greyhound bus I was in travelled through until it stopped at Amarillo, where I alighted to spend a day there. 

But it was on my 1995 backpacking trip when I passed through Amarillo to alight at the next stop, which was at Albuquerque in New Mexico - which happened to be on a Sunday. After alighting at the bus terminal, I spotted a church, just as people were filing in. It turned out to be a large Methodist church. Although the sermon was rather vague, it was afterwards when I was noticed by a group of students. When I told them where I was from, and travelling alone across the continent, they were impressed. Then one of them bought me an after-service lunch, a full meal with which I sat at one of the tables with three of them. It was a gesture of hospitality I had never forgotten - proper agape love.

Methodist Church, Albuquerque. Visited 1995.

But the 1995 Albuquerque church visit was not the first experience I had with American churches. Rather it was in 1978 when I arrived at Portland in Oregon, after an overnight journey from San Francisco. After finding a hotel room and settling in, the next day being Sunday, I found a church - the First Baptist Church. After the service, a couple greeted me and, like the students seventeen years later, was impressed with my travels, and offered me a lift to their home for dinner. I spent the rest of the day with them before dropping me off at my hotel.

There are good churches, those who welcome a passing stranger and offered hospitality, and there are pushy churches that condemn gays, block students from learning anything about evolution, and liable to create a generation of atheists.

As for me, who am I to judge gays or evolutionists? To both, I would much rather pour out agape love and win them to faith in Jesus Christ. That's who they need - God's love and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and such love expressed to them through us. 

  

Persecuted? Here in the UK?

A senior pastor of a local church has written a blog, posted on this website, about a boiler breakdown in the church building with an encouragement to come in on Sunday in extra clothing, at least until new units are installed. The main point of his post centred on when the new units are likely to be fitted, who the contractor might be, and the finance to cover the cost.

His rather cautious post also carries a paragraph reminding all his readers that the boiler breakdown and the resulting chill of the midwinter air is the worst possible scenario his worshippers will need to suffer, and therefore should not stand as a valid reason to stay away from their weekly services. He then makes a comparison between listening to a sermon with a nip in the air to Christians living abroad, where just merely attending church could cost them their lives.

At least in Israel, I was able to worship in a Christian church while at a nearby mosque, the call to prayer sounded from the minaret speakers. Oh yes, that call of prayer, set at definite times of the day. And how could I ever forget 1976, while at the Kidron Valley, where the Arab East Jerusalem residential district of Silwan echoed with the voice of a single male individual, or Imam, reciting his call to prayer tuned to a melody? The loudspeakers set on top of a tower amplified the voice to a level where it reverberated across the valley separating Mount Ophel, on which the ancient Canaanite settlement once sat, from the neighbouring Mount of Olives.

How the Imam recited his call before the invention of loudspeakers has always intrigued me. Did he use a ram's horn, like the Jews did in ancient times? Who knows? Nevertheless, to listen to such a call several times a day echoing through a valley has really made me aware that I was in a foreign country, outside the European bloc.

Silwan at Kidron Valley, East Jerusalem.

However, the further away from the Mediterranean coastline one travels, then Islam becomes less tolerant of Christians. Until one ends up in Saudi Arabia, where Christians are seen as heretics. Hence holding a church service in an Arab city such as Mecca or Medina, the chance of a death penalty imposed by a Muslim judge stands as a high possibility. 

The persecution of Christians around the world is nothing new. Ever since Jesus himself was ministering, by the time he arrived in Jerusalem, the religious fanatics were baying for his blood. And thereafter it came as no surprise that the apostles and their followers suffered hostility, usually from the Pharisees and Sadducees. If my perception of Scripture and history are correct, then it does look as if all sources of persecution has a religious connotation. One good example is the Apostle Paul. He himself, as a Pharisee, chased after Christian believers as far as Damascus was from Jerusalem, and he did it under the authority of Jewish priests, whose letters of consent were carried on him.

Then after his conversion, his mission was constantly impeded by the religiously-minded Jews who were trailing him. One example which I find rather amusing (by modern thinking) was the case in the city of Lystra (Acts 14:8-20). At one particular location (perhaps at a market square or forum) he saw a man crippled at his feet and had never walked in his life. Paul looked directly at him and seeing that he had faith, ordered the man to stand up. And here is the amusing bit. He did stand up for the first time in his life and probably praised God too. But the rest of the crowd were astonished at such a miracle taking place at their midst and sincerely believed that the two preachers were human manifestations of gods - with Barnabas being Zeus and Paul being Hermes. And therefore animal sacrifices were prepared for them.

But it was a group of Jews who convinced the crowd rather than Paul's pleading. And the Jews successfully turned the crowd against the apostles and with the miracle forgotten, therefore creating a barrier blocking the crowd from receiving salvation. Indeed, what Jewish religion has done was to turn a rather amusing incident into a tragedy.

Then inside the arena at the centre of Rome, Christians were sent to their deaths on a regular basis. They were fed to the lions or killed in several other ways. The reason for this was again religious. The Roman edict demands that every citizen must swear an oath that their Emperor is Lord and divine. But Christians insists that the risen Jesus of Nazareth is both Lord and Christ, and one with the divine Godhead. As a consequence of such a confession, they were thrown to the lions.

With the testimony of history, both ancient and recent, I have wondered how our modern-day English Christian would respond and cope if persecution of the physical kind was to erupt here. On a Facebook comment forum which trails the pastor's blog link, I wrote a teasing comment on the issue, proving that I have read the whole blog. My contribution received no responses, whether for or against, agreement or disagreement. Or no "likes" or emoji. And there is an emoji reflecting every mood, from laughter to tears, from shock to anger. Indeed, I wonder whether such believers are so thin-skinned as they are either apathetic, too uptight or even upset by the tease to make any response, even if just by posting an appropriate emoji. 

Perhaps an invasion of Muslims into this country and turning it into an Islamic State may actually do good for our churches and to them! At least in three ways. Sure, Islamic persecution of Christians will indeed shake off the cultural dross clinging to all of us as believers, myself included. And such persecution would sort out the committed from the nominal, the regenerated from the mere professor. In turn, the Muslims will receive testimonies that this Jesus we believe in is the risen Christ, the Son of God, and be saved.

Shah Jahan Mosque in Woking, Surrey.

If the Adversary has always been behind physical persecution of the churches, then his purpose was a complete failure. Through such oppression, the churches were purified from any worldly dross, and false brothers left voluntarily. Therefore he tried a different tact, one which was very efficient. That was to condition the grace of God into something that must be accompanied by a work of some kind. The Churches in the region of Galatia were confused by a set of teaching from some Judaisers, that in order for salvation to take effect, every male Christian must be circumcised. They have backed this with Scripture, particularly from Genesis 17:14, which says that any uncircumcised male will be cut off from God's people. Very convincing stuff. Little wonder that the Apostle Paul had to write a stern letter condemning such teaching, and cursed its advocates.

I suppose that the Adversary knows that God won't allow him to physically persecute British Christians. Or it may be that such oppression is not really necessary - well, at least if there is a far more subtle way of throwing a stumbling block at the churches. And that's through the mind rather than through physical harm. He has already tried physical discomfort, even to the point of death. It didn't work. The churches flourished. Their members lived purified lives and eagerly looked forward to the Return of Christ and to their bodily redemption and their promised glory. Their members all developed a close relationship with their beloved Saviour. Indeed, the more the flesh suffered an element of discomfort or was even destroyed, the more their spirits grew. 

Oh for Islam to invade Britain and start up a War of the Faiths! I guess that will sort out the men from the boys, wouldn't it? Or the true saint from the phoney. And one sidekick from all this is the Christian's stance on Divine Creation. I sincerely believe that those who believe in Theistic Evolution will either repudiate his ideas for the Biblical record or he will melt like a snowflake under the sun. 

Under such persecution, the Christian will be given a fundamental choice, and the choice is this: Is this Jesus of Nazareth the actual risen Christ who was crucified to atone for us? I think the making or breaking of his faith depends a lot on whether he believes in the Biblical record recorded in the early chapters of Genesis, or whether he has always believed in Evolution, theistic or otherwise. After all, if all the Old Testament saints believed in the Genesis record, as Jesus himself did, along with all the apostles and their followers, then who are we to think we know better?

But theistic evolution is not only the central core of our English brothers in Christ. What I have seen, a university degree is very high on the believer's order of importance. Now, to hold a degree of higher education is not so bad in itself. Rather, it can be an excellent commodity, opening a wealth of vocational opportunities. But I wonder what effect would Islamic persecution of Christians in this land would have on them? If their degree was to get in the way of a wholehearted faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God and Saviour or deny the reality of God's love to keep his high-income career?

Or here is another one: Social status. Over more than forty years as a Christian, one characteristic that is so well cherished by both Christian men and women is being middle-class. I guess this is inextricably linked to a high level of education and a profession with a high income. Throughout the years, I have seen far more computer experts than refuse collectors. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a believing dustman worshipping in church throughout the last 46 years as a Christian! However, I have known a few builders, two I knew have already gone to glory. However, there is a large student group fellowshipping with us every Sunday. Fortunately, I'm quite popular with them, but I do wonder where all this will go if persecution were to arise.

And there I need to look at my own set of circumstances. Okay, given a choice of limitless world travel if I was to deny Jesus as the Christ, or be banged up in a prison cell if I keep on confessing him. I think I'll know where I would stand on that one. Swapping a glorious crown for an air ticket is by no means a wise decision! Especially after touching down at Heathrow Airport, which I'll end up doing no matter how long I'll be away. But there is one situation where I would indeed be in dire straits. That is if my wife was kidnapped by a group of Muslims. Then given a stark choice: Deny Christ and she can return home with me. But refuse to deny Jesus as the Son of God and she would suffer a painful death.

Now that would be a real stinker, wouldn't it? My dearest beloved. I think this would require the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome this one. For both of us. For only God can empower her to encourage me not to deny my Lord, and I require the power of the Holy Spirit to keep on confessing him. But although such a situation is terrible, it is but a moment compared to the eternal glory to come. And both of us must realise this.

At Portsmouth Spinnaker Tower, 2011.

Under Islamic rule, there will be no more worries about church heating or boiler replacement. This is because, for its very survival, church members may have to meet in a garden shed, as the original building would be turned into a mosque. Not very nice during the Winter, but it's either this or scattered across the country. Furthermore, employers would willingly fire all Christians, and each has to find a way to keep bills paid, for it's quite likely that all State benefits will wind up for all non-Muslims. Perhaps many will also be made homeless as a result, and end up finding shared accommodation with other Christians. As for the National Health Service, only Muslims can use the facilities free to the point of use. Christians must pay the full price or face exclusion.

But whatever wretched set of circumstances every Christian has found himself in, one thing for sure, and that is every true believer will shine like glorious stars before a watching world. Their zeal for God and his Kingdom will be so intense that they will all be beyond reproach, blameless in everything they think, say and do. And rather than pursue the middle-class status quo, they would give up their bodies in an instant if this would bring glory to God.

But I guess none of all this will ever happen. English life is way too comfortable as it is, and our social-class culture is highly treasured. Could this be the reason why just a couple of days ago the hard-line Brexiteers and the far-Right hassled a female Tory MP outside Parliament to have all building of mosques stopped and Muslim immigration checked before our country turns into a caliphate? 

Sex - So Controversial...

A long-standing friend and I stood at the window of a bar overlooking an indoor climbing gym. At that point he told me about a rebuke he received from a church elder on one of their evening meetings. As expected, it was over the issue of greeting each other with hugs instead of a stiff handshake. I asked him whether my name was mentioned. His answer was yes, the issue was between him and me. This particular case made it more of an annoying issue because I was not present to defend my case nor his, since these Sunday evening meetings were geared more for students and other people generally young enough to be my grandchildren.

In my annoyance I announced that all this began from a complaint made by the son of another one of our church members, and I told my friend directly that this young man, who is no longer with us, is in the closet. Hence all this palaver about such intimacy "spoiling the imagery of our church among unbelievers" and "to be to the likes all men" are so nonsensical and hypocritical. My friend defended his case by saying that hugging is the norm within African churches, as for some years he spent months doing missionary work, which included installing an electric power generator over a local stream, and making possible the building of a hospital. How the elder responded to such an answer I was not told.

The conversation continued about his own experience on how other college-age singletons had admitted to him about their struggles on sexual libido and fetishes when aroused by the appearance of someone of the same gender. His testimony backs my experience in encountering men who may appear godly and devoted to God on the outside but struggle secretly within when another good-looking fellow is in the same room. And too afraid or reluctant to share to others in case this may bring judgement, condemnation and possible feelings of rejection.

And my friend at the bar should know this well. There are some African nations with a Christian constitution where homosexuality is illegal and offenders can receive a death penalty. One good example is Uganda. On You-Tube, you can click on a video about a British presenter Scott Mills, himself openly gay, and investigating on why there is a high level of homophobia in Uganda along with such a fear of the death penalty. His findings has shown that the three main sources of homophobia were the churches, the Government, and politicians. Echoes of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas and its late radically homophobic pastor, Fred Phelps, who enjoyed displaying street placards condemning homosexuals to hell, along with the rest of the USA for tolerating it. With such hatred and with many cases of physical abuse, even murders, it's no surprise that even here in the UK, known for its easier and liberal stance on the matter, people are still too much afraid to leave their tightly-shut closets.

 Scott Mills rebuked by a homophobic church leader in Uganda 

And despite of all this, hugging is as natural as it can get in African churches. And as my friend knows it, we hug each other often. And he is a married man with two daughters, just as I too am married and fathered three daughters. And to add to this, it's often a case of him desiring a hug from me as well as me from him. And about a year ago there was a case of an African visitor, himself a married man with children, who after getting acquainted with me, gave me a prolonged rib-crushing embrace, which took place within view of the English church complainer whose son is a secret gay. Not surprisingly, after remarking about the reluctance among Brits to display such emotion, this black charismatic character soon left our church for another fellowship elsewhere. Without doubt, I guess he was firmly rebuked, which prompted him to leave. 

It is within me to hug other men in the church, whether they are married or single. However, I have a greater caution about hugging women, in case of offending, although there are some women I do hug. But these I know well enough not to take offence. Nevertheless, among countless man-to-man hugs over four decades, only one complained to the elders, which eventually led me to conclude that he is in the closet. And that is without ever suspecting his fetishes whilst he was still with us. And as I have already mentioned, he is by no means alone. There are a number of others found in churches whose libidos clashes with their Christian faith, and therefore struggle in their conflicts.

Yet I know where my elders are coming from. They'll be the first to quote Leviticus 20:13:-

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Paul the apostle backs this up when he wrote to the Romans:-

Because of this (idolatry), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations with unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty (STD? AIDS?) for their perversion.

Romans 1:26-27.

So hugging is condemned! Or is it? Is there a difference between greeting someone with a hug and a scene resembling this:-

Before (Lot and his two guests) had gone to bed, every man from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them" (or, we may know them - KJV). 

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who had never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door.

Genesis 19:4-10.

And so by hugging another man to greet him in church places me onto the same platform as these inhabitants of the city of Sodom, according to my elder's perception. Or for short, I can be classed as a sodomite! Incredulous. No, I don't believe this. Because even then there is a world of a difference between those Sodomites and these Christian believers who are struggling with their sexual orientation, their fetishes, and their libidos. And so the Christian singleton who totally abstains from any sexual contact even from his girlfriend or fiancee, he is praised by his colleagues as living a holy life, while at the same time his friend, who has a desire for another man standing nearby, is not only wondering whether he has ever been regenerated or not, but lives in fear of discovery and judgement. The snag is, the "spiritually pure" hetero who is engaged to be married and is perceived as living in godliness, is not necessarily free from a sudden rush of blood if he glances at another pretty female standing nearby.

And where heterosexuality is concerned, there has always this perception within churches that to cohabit outside marriage is wrong and sinful. No, I am not advocating cohabitation. But I am rather surprised, and somewhat relieved too, by not seeing a chaperone whenever a church member pairs off with a girlfriend and start to deepen their relationship. Am I being cynical here? In the church I attended between 1975 and 1990, there was a deacon who was a self-appointed chaperone and always interfered whenever a young man, normally a graduate, gets friendly with a similarly aged female. Fortunately for Alex and myself, there was no chaperone to interfere with us before we married, since this was long after I left that church. Therefore we did cohabit for a few months before we married, including having sex. When a member of my former church - who was chaperoned along with his future partner before they were married - found out about us living together without a wedding ring on our fingers, he got quite cross about it.

He began to lecture me about sex being reserved for married couples only. He then blushed as he attempted to splutter out the second chapter of Genesis. As he was blushing, I could almost see the accusing finger of God pointing at him rather than at me. The reason for this was simple. He was, and still is, a staunch evolutionist, and therefore denied the historicity of pre-Abrahamic Scriptures and in effect calling God a liar. Little wonder if I were to say to any unchurched:- Cohabitation without getting married is against my religion - I would put anyone off seeking faith in God, and be a slippery path towards atheism.

The way I see it, this is rather a delicate subject. Especially when I read things in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. For example, Abraham slept with at least one woman aside his own wife Sarah. He slept with Hagar, who gave birth to Ishmael. Then his grandson Jacob was a bigamist, for he married both Leah and Rachel within a week of each other. And I doubt whether any church at present would endorse bigamy. Then there is the case of King David. And here I read something of specific interest. Yes, we all agree that David sinned against God when he slept with Bathsheba, because she was the wife of another man, Uriah the Hittite, a soldier for Israel who was very loyal to David. But what Nathan had to say in judgement to the King I find interesting:-

This is what the Lord the God of Israel, says:

"I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this has been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord  by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own.

2 Samuel 12:7-10.  

The issue here is that God gave Saul's wives and concubines to David. So apparently David did not sin against God when he slept with all these women. Instead, this was in keeping with Middle Eastern culture and tradition - for a king or rich aristocrat to have a harem of concubines. King David had ten concubines, according to 2 Samuel 15:16 and 20:3. This was perfectly normal. In fact, Jesus himself used the same Middle Eastern custom in his Parable of the Ten Virgins to illustrate the Kingdom of God (Matthew 25:1-13). They were all virgins. Five were wise, five foolish. When the king arrived, he took in the five who were readily available to form his son's harem. They were distinguished from the son's actual bride, the king's legal daughter in law.

So with all I can perceive, it is sinful to lie with another man's wife. And this applies to divorce, about which Jesus says that anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery (Luke 16:18). Apparently, as God sees it, a divorcee is still married to the former spouse. So according to Jesus' words, to marry someone divorced is to commit adultery. And becomes even worse than that. All the guy has to do is look at a woman lustfully and his has committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28). I suppose this could apply to someone who has a fetish for someone of the same gender:- I say to you, if any man looks lustfully at another man, he has committed sodomy with him in his heart already. Little wonder any Christian with this problem struggles and often falls away.

And this whole matter seems grossly unfair. A man looks at a woman with lust and he is condemned, even if he does nothing to her. Then we read of David having ten concubines, any one of them welcomed to his bed. Or how about David's son Solomon, perhaps the most wise king throughout all history. Not only had he impressed the Queen of Sheba with his wisdom but managed to get a thousand wives and concubines into his bed! That is one woman each night for three years (1 Kings 11:1-4). It is worth noting here that Solomon married and slept with foreign women, those who were not of Israel. Solomon's sin was allowing himself to be led astray into idolatry. If he had kept his harem within the realm of Israeli women, more likely he would have stayed true to God, and the splitting of the nation between Israel and Judah which followed his death might have been avoided.

It's so messy, coming to think of it. So controversial. Here is Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon sleeping around rather freely. Even Jesus used the harem in one of his parables. Then come to the present, and we see the church judging any believer or member having sex outside of marriage. Really, as one of the guilty party myself, where do I stand?

And it's here where the Gospel comes in. Gospel simply means Good News. Very good news indeed. Because as Paul also wrote to the church in Rome, all one has to do is believe in his heart that God raised Jesus physically from the dead and confess him as the Messiah, the Son of God, and he will be saved (Romans 10:9-13). This is the promise of God, that his salvation is open to all believers, regardless of his background or what he has done. Whether a married man faithful to his wife or a pimp with prostitutes or a homosexual out on a cruise - salvation is open to all.

Open to all who believes in his heart the Resurrection of Jesus. He who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God - 1 John 5:1. The Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth regenerates the heart, the threefold revelation brings new desires, which includes a new spirit which cannot sin, and the ability to turn away known sin. But not out of compulsion or legalism. Nor for the fear of punishment. Rather, by the gradual replacement of old, sinful desires with good, God-honouring wishes. The work of grace. 

Is God Like A Computer?

I remember when I first became involved with the Internet and e-mailing. It was the beginning of an exciting chapter of my life, one like a foreign land waiting to be explored. With this, I started to email my friends who were a lot more experienced with technology, and I was amazed on how quickly the message arrived at the other end, even if it was halfway round the world.

Then not long after, I tried to send an email to someone living just a few miles away. About ten minutes later a report came back to me announcing that the message failed to reach its recipient and was returned to me. A visitor came round and I showed him the failed email. Apparently, although the recipient lived locally, the visitor showed me that the email completed a journey as far away as Germany before returning to my computer. When I spoke to the recipient in person a week later, it dawned on me that I left out a dot in his email address!

A tiny dot missing and the message endured a trip through the cables across Europe, then back to me, instead of arriving at a terminal locally. And according to forty years of my Christian experience, I tend to think that God is a bit like that when it comes to salvation and how to receive it.

What do I mean by this? I once read in a Christian booklet about how one author believed on what other churches were thinking:
We are the people. We are hearing from God. We are obeying God. We are doing his will.
So churches of all different denominations, according to the author, were at competition with each other on who was most pleasing to God. He then went on to stress that he and his group were the ones living and preaching what the Early Church practised under the Apostles.

I have seen this many times over the decades. As a young Christian, I have gotten involved with both Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, each insisting that they, and they alone, were the true followers of God as patterned by the first church in Jerusalem. Puzzled and should I say, rather confused, in the early to mid 1970s I visited a Christian bookshop in London (right next to St. Paul's Cathedral, the city's most famous landmark) and bought and studied books on this subject. These pieces of literature revealed many more groups: Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Christian Science, Unitarianism, Christadelphians, Theosophy, to name a few. Each insisting that they are right while all others were wrong and of the devil. Then on top of this, the more "orthodox" denominations: Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, United Reformed - Wheeee! The list seems endless. Little wonder I was confused, after debating with Jehovah's Witnesses who insisted that they were in God's will while all other churches and groups were followers of the Devil and will be destroyed.

When I was in my twenties, as a result, I had developed an idea what the Last Judgement may be like, with all members of every group standing at the Throne, each group carefully arrayed, a bit like that of blades of a fan or propeller radiating from the Throne. Then God says, "The group who has done my will and receives eternal life is...that one." So this one group marches into Heaven while all the rest gets pushed into Hell, shouting, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? In which the reply from the Throne would be, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
That was how I perceived the Last Judgement to be like back in the 1970s.



The Last Judgement


So among this plethora of different faiths and beliefs came the reasoning that God would only respond and grant eternal life if I came to him in the right way, then attend a church which taught exactly the right things and conducted exactly the right form of service, or else God would shut the door on me. A bit like the email. Minus the dot and it doesn't reach its destination.
Of course, by now I have grown out of this mentality. Yet in browsing the Internet, the debate among believers rages on, and supposedly mature Christian writers and preachers denouncing the other as "devilish doctrine." I felt myself getting sucked in once again towards the 1970s mentality. But before I continue with this article, I was thinking over the past week - does the average reader understand some of the terms I use so readily in my other blogs? It's a bit like a doctor telling me that I have gastroenteritis.
"Er, what?" I asked.
"A stomach bug."

Therefore I shall give the meaning of the terms I have used so readily in my other blogs, so that the uninitiated reader will understand my jargon a lot easier (I hope!)

Eternal Security of the Believer, also Once Saved Always Saved, Calvinism.
The belief that once a person has been declared righteous by God, he is forever saved and is eternally adopted into God's family. He cannot lose his salvation regardless how much or little he falls into sin. This was highlighted by John Calvin.

Arminian, Arminianism, Arminius.
James Arminius disputed John Calvin's emphasis on the Sovereignty of God and divine grace in favour of human choice. The end result was that by human choice salvation can be lost by the believer if he either let his sins accumulate and/or turns from his faith. The conclusion from this that after believing, a Christian can still end up in Hell.

Imputed Grace
A sinner declared righteous by God without the sinner needing to first reform himself. This righteousness is a declared verdict pronounced by God the Judge in the Heavenly Court from the moment a sinner believes. It was the central truth of the Protestant Reformation.

Infused Grace
A supernatural power given by God for the sinner to reform himself to an acceptable standard of behaviour before God can declare him righteous. Committing a serious sin forfeits this power, making the believer in danger of Hell unless he undergoes penance. A central Roman Catholic teaching.

Having given a brief glossary of definitions, as a Calvinist myself, I have in the past week been reading some Internet websites, particularly by Calvinist writers. I felt my heart fall rather than feeling assured or edified. The reason being is that these writers on Eternal Security sees God like a computer, accepting those who hold certain doctrines and denouncing or rejecting those who don't. One writer denounced all Arminians as holding on to a false gospel and are heading for Hell. To be honest, I too have called forfeitable salvation a false gospel. Why was this? Because any human work done to either achieve salvation or to keep it is a denial of imputed grace. Salvation is a free gift given by God to a sinner through faith without prior reforming of himself to modify his behaviour.

But I believe that God is far more merciful than what these Calvinist writers allow. For example, in my younger days I thought that I had to believe in the Holy Trinity before I could be saved. But take a read of Acts chapter 2, and there is nothing about the Trinity in Peter's discourse to the Jews. In fact, this doctrine was vertically unknown, yet it is the central doctrine of the Christian faith.

What Peter exhorted his listeners to do was to believe in the Resurrection of the One they had crucified, this Jesus. His resurrection proved that Jesus is indeed the Christ and forgiveness of sin was available if one changed his mind (repent) and believed this truth. Paul in Romans 10:9-10 says exactly the same thing, that whoever confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in his heart that God has raised him from the dead, he will be saved. That's it. First the heart belief that God raised him from the dead. This trusting belief will cause the person to declare, "Yes, Jesus Christ is Lord." And God in Heaven declares him righteous from that moment on.

Faith in the truth of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is what saves a person. Knowledge of the Trinity comes afterwards, when he learns that the Holy Spirit is also God, in the lifelong process of sanctification, which means to modify the believer's heart after salvation. The same applies to eternal security. That is realised after one is saved. But one may be taught not to believe in eternal security. The person is still saved.

I sincerely believe that many Arminians are truly saved. Also, a proportion of Roman Catholics, despite what they are taught to believe, had enough faith for God to save them. In fact, the idea that the entire population of France, Italy and the Iberian Peninsula are totally lost without hope because of Catholicism, I find to be ludicrous. Surely, among the multitudes who attend church, there must be hearts who believe that God raised Jesus from the dead and had fully trusted in this truth. Would God really leave such a huge multitude spiritually blind, after giving of his Son to atone for their sin?

Faith here, I'm talking about trusting, not merely intellectual belief. For example, world renowned atheist Richard Dawkins is fully aware of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But he ridicules it as a fancy story, an opiate for people unenlightened by science. Dawkins believes intellectually, but he has no faith, and remains an atheist.


Richard Dawkins

Calvinist writers have no right to pass judgement upon those who don't agree with them. Nor for that matter, Arminian writers passing judgement on Calvinists. God is not a computer. Rather, he accepts anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ as saviour, regardless of background, status, dot or no dot.