English Bible Written by Foreigners?

I sat up last week when the morning service announcements were read out at our church. For it was announced that at the evening service, this graduate, whom I will refer to as Charlie, will be giving a talk about Creation. I was alerted. Creation is right up my street, and I was already interested on what kind of opinion Charlie will have to share on it.

And so that evening I made a special effort to cycle to our church at North Ascot. But my misunderstanding on the time the service actually commences meant that I arrived more than thirty minutes early. This half hour was designated for pre-service coffee and cake refreshments, and having had tea at home earlier, it felt to me to be a good idea to take a stroll into the North Ascot residential estate for the threefold reason of digesting my last meal, doing some extra exercise, and killing excess time. Fortunately the weather was fair, dry and warm, appropriate in Southern England on a typical June Sunday.

Our church at North Ascot.

About fifty metres further along the sidewalk, another regular church member was approaching in the opposite direction. It was unusual for him to be alone, not having his wife accompany him was not the norm. As we were about to pass each other, I smiled up to him and bade good evening. Instead of acknowledging my greeting as any polite gentleman would do to someone he knew well, he grimaced as he held his silence and walked on towards the church building, as he would to anyone he doesn't like. As for me, to forgive plays an important role in my walk with God. Jesus taught it, even to the extent that if a brother sins as much as seven by seventy times, he must be forgiven that many times, even whether it's 77 or 490 times a day! (Matthew 18:21-22). Even when considering physical health alone, to forgive will spare the merciful person from a multitude of illnesses.

I approached the road junction at the middle of the residential estate, where I paused to look around. Indeed it was quite a posh area, a layout of privately-owned homes, inhabited by predominantly middle class residents. However, the quietness of the traffic-free streets was sad in a way but of no real surprise. Back in my boyhood days it would have been common to watch boys playing football or cricket (without allowing the ball to break a window), while the girls were out playing hopscotch, house or schools. Kid's voices echoed through the street, from time to time a scuffle would erupt, and occasionally a boy could be seen running or walking back home in tears. Such was the rough and tumble of growing up, the excess energy well and truly spent, and given little or no chance for obesity to set in.

But as I stood at the road junction on a typical early Summer Sunday tea-time, the stillness and the quietness of the estate had somehow gotten to me. Imagining every family sitting in front of the TV, their teenage sons shut in their own bedrooms and glued to the play station, Facebook or whatever, the well-known but unbiblical phrase The Englishman's Home is his Castle looks very appropriate in North Ascot. And much more so as I passed one residence as I made my way back to the church, what seems to be some argument taking place at the front door between a female householder and a caller.

The grimacing pedestrian I passed earlier lives on or near the estate. Very English, as I have known him for a number of years, he has a tendency to look up in awe to graduates but despises commoners who may hold different opinions. He has already condemned me to an eternity in Hell - not because of any possibility of deliberately rejecting Jesus Christ as Saviour, but because I am not in the middle-class academic realm, and therefore my own tendency to hug other men is seen by him as a transgression of Englishness.

Crazy, isn't it? In truth, I wish that the risen Jesus of Nazareth would materialise in front of me and give me a long embrace, his nail-scarred hands tapping gently on my back and giving it a gentle stroke as he showers me with love and affection. I guess I have to wait until the afterlife before I can have that experience. Instead, I belong to a church which within includes a few middle-class eccentrics and academic weirdos, who either cannot accept the Bible as literal history or finding difficulty in doing so. As was the case with Charlie, whom the grimacing pedestrian adores.

Charlie is quite an academic in his own right, whose graduation on Middle East political history has enabled him to write books on the subject, although at this point in time still awaiting publication. With myself believing him to be one of many patriots who voted for Britain to leave the EU, I also have an awareness of the possibility of him being a supporter and follower of Jacob Rees Mogg, sometimes addressed as Moggy, the posh Conservative politician and fanatic Brexit supporter and a patriot with an Etonian and Oxford University Alma Mater, and having a plum tone of voice to boot. Such an ideal Englishman adored by many within the Centre-Right wing political circles, and whose active Roman Catholic faith has attracted comments from his critics as one politician being disillusioned with his imaginary pixie in the sky.

With his academic and political standing established in my mind, I listened carefully to Charlie's preach, and as I have previously suspected, he did not take the first chapter of Genesis as literal history, but as a poetical form parallel to an ancient Mesopotamian tablet, the Enuma Elish, a Babylonian text very similar to the Gilgamesh Epic, also from Babylon, the latter I'm more familiar with. The Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic are both very similar in context in a sense that they both relate to Biblical events as recorded in Genesis, the first dealing with Creation whilst the latter is about Noah's Flood. Both were to do with warring gods, bickering deities who initiated Creation out of war and revenge rather than a demonstration of God's love and Creative powers. Furthermore, secular academics have placed the Gilgamesh Epic above Genesis in literature status, insisting that Genesis was copied from the Epic, therefore granting the Babylonian text as having greater authority than the Biblical narrative. Therefore it was of no surprise when Charlie placed the Enuma Elish at equal standing with the Bible as being poetical and non-historical in context.

Fragments of Enuma Elish tablet

The Enuma Elish was something new to me, and in a way I thank Charlie for opening up a wealth of knowledge at my disposal. Checking on the Internet, it looks as though Charlie composed his preach from author Pete Enns, who has written books on Biblical history, as well as blogs to the website Bio-Logos, a site centred on Theistic Evolution, or as they refer to as Evolutionary Creationism. One of Pete Enns' articles is about Enuma Elish, and it looked to have been the bedrock for Charlie's sermon.

I have had a good look through several articles presented in Bio-Logos, and I came to the realisation that this website is more approachable than Creation Ministries International website, the latter which tend to have a cutting edge with its articles and general presentation, as if constantly defending itself from heavy opposition and even mockery from the secular world. Creation Ministries International has always been highly critical of Bio-Logos for compromising with Darwin's theories, with no fewer than 550 articles one way or another firing criticism at the website.

But despite Bio-Logos more gentle approach to the reader, I cannot accept Theistic Evolution as a bedrock for Biblical Creationism, at least for one very important reason. That is, if Theistic Evolution is a reality, then Adam and Eve had parents, and maybe thousands of brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, and cousins too who all died natural deaths. If death was already at work among men before the fall, then that totally invalidates the Atonement made by Jesus Christ on the Cross, and also invalidates the Resurrection. That means that Christ is powerless to save us and our faith remains futile. Christ atoned for us because of the sin of our first parents, the sole head couple of all mankind. There is no alternative.

It is true that the course of creation as narrated in the first chapter of Genesis poses problems. For example, the land and the seas was created on the second day, the sun, moon and stars came to being on the fourth day, after all vegetation was created on the third day. Therefore where the source of light was from day one and how the dividing of day from night which occurred on the same day came to be, we are not told. But it is taught, and therefore to be accepted with faith. Later, God himself endorses and confirms the historicity of his literal six-day Creation to the Hebrews by ushering in the Sabbath day as the Fourth Commandment in the Decalogue, explaining a literal six-day creation followed by his rest on the seventh. I would go on to say that, after the completion of day six, the forces of Creation during those six days are not in force now. From day seven, which was in itself God's day of rest, the forces of creative power ended and it has not been in operation ever since to this day.

With the historicity of Genesis held to question, here is another opportunity to demonstrate the historicity of Holy Scripture by means of simple arithmetical calculations. In this case, there is another mystery which seemed to remain unexplained, and that is the mystery of Melchizedek, the king of Salem at the time of Abraham. Therefore, what does the writer of Hebrews mean when he says that this priest "is from everlasting to everlasting, without father or mother, he remains a priest forever."-? (Hebrews 7:3). Do we have two priests at work on our behalf, Melchizedek and Jesus Christ?

It was by coming across a Jewish quote about a Hebrew tradition saying that Melchizedek was actually Shem, the son of Noah, and of whom Noah blessed the Lord, the God of Shem (Genesis 9:26). So I decided to look into this. So with just pencil and paper, I was able to work out that two years after the Flood, Shem became the father of Arphaxad at the age of a hundred years (Genesis 11:10-26). In turn, Arphaxad became the father of Shelah at age 35 years. After this, Shelah became the father of Eber at thirty years of age (Eber is the original name from which the word Hebrew arose). And so right down to Abraham. By adding the ages of each father at his son's birth (and not their full age), Shem was already 390 years old when Abraham was born, and when the two met after rescuing Lot at the battle of the kings, Abraham was between 80-84 years of age, making Shem between 470-474 years of age. By the time Abraham died at the age of 175 years, Shem was 565 years old, and actually lived on for another 35 years until he himself died at age 600 years, according to Genesis 11:10, with the first 100 years already lived before the Flood.

This is where being without parents made sense to Abraham. After the Flood, Noah himself lived for a further 350 years after the Flood, making a total lifespan of 950 years - the first 600 years during the antediluvian age. When Noah died 350 years after the Flood, Abraham was already alive and he was already 60 years old. This was more than twenty years before Shem met Abraham to receive the tithe. The chances of Abraham ever meeting Noah, I guess, would have been very slim, if not at all, as Abraham did not travel that north. In fact, at 60, he was still in the Mesopotamian area, as he did not enter Canaan until 75 years old (Genesis 12:4-5). There would be no logical reason why Noah would have migrated from near Mount Ararat in present Eastern Turkey if, according to Scripture, he had planted a vineyard there. What I can make of it all, Shem being the same man as Melchizedek makes good sense and therefore re-enforces the historicity of the Bible, especially Genesis.

Which brings me to ask why, in the fifth chapter of Genesis, each patriarch, including Noah himself, was concluded with the words, and he died? For example:
When Seth lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived for 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether Seth lived for 912 years and he died. (5:6-8).

But in chapter 11:10-32, with a full list of post-diluvian patriarchs, not one was concluded with the words, and he died. By doing the reckoning as discussed above, it became clear that all the post-diluvian patriarchs were still alive during Abraham's lifetime. This may explain the difference between chapter five and chapter eleven, where in the latter, the words and he died does not appear.

By doing a little bit of calculating, I can verify the historicity of the Bible, and not relegated into the realm of myth or mere poetry. I think it is a grievous error to mythologise Genesis, or come to that, any part of the Bible. But so unfortunate it is, when Englishness has that knack of playing down the historicity of Holy Scripture in order to exalt himself on a national level, is to play the role of supremacy, even if it is possible, to exalt himself above God. As I have come across over and over again, the Englishman has a tendency to think of himself above all foreigners in all nationalistic, cultural and academic circles. It may not be done deliberately or openly, although there are far-right groups who do just that. Rather, it lies in the subconscious. The Englishman cannot help thinking the way he does. Although I cannot claim to be a mind-reader, these set of ideas seem to play well with the grimacing pedestrian's rudeness.

The Bible is not an English book. None of it was written by the English. Instead it was written by foreigners, almost entirely by Jews living in the Middle East, and then much later translated into English. Maybe, just a thought, if the English such as the grimacing pedestrian, had a far greater awe and reverential respect for the historicity and truthfulness of the Bible than the awe he has for a fellow academic, then who knows, Darwinism may not have got to where it is now.

Jesus, Friend of Sinners

My wife and I had returned from a holiday (vacation) in Malta, to celebrate our 13th Wedding Anniversary. We loved this little southern Mediterranean island with its agreeable climate, warm weather, turquoise sea and a dramatic coastline with cliffs and spectacular caves. Furthermore, the Maltese seemed to have been much more cheerful and more laid back than the average Briton. Surely, much of this has to do with the warm weather.

Two attractions caught our attention. One was the Blue Lagoon, on the tiny island of Comino, just off the north coast of the much larger island of Malta. This partially enclosed area of sea was made beautifully turquoise by a sandy seabed.

The Blue Lagoon, Comino Island, Malta

Its beauty made it a popular tourist attraction despite lacking of any proper beaches. Snorkeling or swimming with goggles is highly recommended to avoid the occasional jellyfish, which can only be seen with proper underwater vision. Just a little above the lagoon, a trail offers great views of the attraction, such as the pic posted above, taken from the trail. Then we had the usual money-spinning paraphernalia: mobile kiosks who offered to fill our hungry stomachs for a rather exorbitant price!

But the top attraction, in my opinion, had to be the Blue Grotto, on the south side of Malta itself. It's a large cave penetrating into the cliff, which also boast a natural arch and a number of other caves. Fishermen in the area are doing a roaring trade escorting tourists like us to the Grotto for just a few euros for a thirty-minute trip. Inside the Grotto, chemicals of the rocks beneath turn the water into a glowing azure blue, as if there was a fluorescent light unit underwater.

Azure waters in the Blue Grotto.

During our visit the the Grotto, I was one of a minority of tourists to enjoy a swim inside the cave. It was such an exhilarating experience, no doubt, would stay with me for life. The azure waters was not cold but pleasant, its crystal clearness reminding me of that river flowing from the throne of God in Heaven. I hope you enjoy these pics. To me, this is just a foretaste of the eternal joy every believer in Jesus Christ as Saviour will experience in the presence of God forever.

Swimming in the azure blue waters in the Grotto was one of the highlights of the entire holiday!

The entire holiday was God's blessing to us, a demonstration of undeserved grace, goodness and mercy. But the most important aspect of the vacation was for Alex and I spending time together. Although here we appreciated the beauty and majesty of God in his creation, I believe that our relationship as husband and wife is more important to God, for this has eternal consequence, while even the most beautiful or aesthetic natural features of our planet are temporary and will come under judgement when our fallen world will be destroyed and re-created.

Our hotel room faced the street, where nearby a bar kept revellers drinking until two in the morning. As the laughter and guffaws echoed through otherwise an empty street relatively free of traffic, it was one of these evenings that due to a thirst, we bought a drink in the bar ourselves. Wading through the crowd, we saw two vacant seats at an outside table which was occupied by two men who were guffawing and sharing crude jokes with each other. I asked them if those seats were already taken, and when we received a negative answer, Alex and I settled at the same table with them.

We started chatting, and it soon became apparent that the bonding between my wife and myself impressed them. A saucy joke was cracked and all four of us broke into laughter. Then a little more seriously, one of them asked where and how we met. Now the crunch had come. Digging for courage, I told them quite openly that we met at our local church, then told them straight that Jesus Christ is my Saviour and Lord, and I felt my spirit lifted up. The rebuffs I was expecting didn't come. Instead they were hesitating as one of them said that we all should respect each other's beliefs. They explained to us that they had to go to a meeting in Valletta (capital of Malta) the next day for an important celebration. Due to their hesitating, it took a while for me to find out what this meeting was about.

Eventually, we were told that one of them will be promoted to a higher degree at the Masonic lodge. The conversation then carried on about Freemasonry and the efforts they put in to defend their group and the benefits it offered. Not once did I say a negative word against it.

That was the crux of it all. They feared judgement from us. I felt, rightly, that I was in no position to judge. But they did not realise that at first. Hence their hesitation to come straight out with it. This made me think about the life of Jesus Christ when he was here with us. He always went to a very similar place to the pub we sat at. There must have been revellers in his day, laughing, guffawing, telling crude jokes and sending waves of laughter. Those people were looked down upon by the scribes and the Pharisees, who referred to them as "the tax collectors and sinners." They were seen as "defiled" by many a Jew, even despised by the local fishermen for demanding a share of their catch, which was then sold and the proceeds went to the Romans, who ruled over their land at that time. Even the fishermen themselves were prone to obscene language. Peter was such a one. When challenged whether he was one of Jesus' followers, he "began to curse and swear, saying, I know not the man" (Matthew 26:74, Mark 14:71.)

On one occasion, Jesus was heading towards Matthew's house and according to Luke, (5:27-32) there was a crowd of publicans who most likely were revelling, telling crude jokes, teased one another and a frequent swear word thrown into the air. Yet Jesus made no hesitation to keep company with them, despite the protestations of the Pharisees. On such an occasion, he even went so far to say that they will enter the Kingdom of God before the religious.

Jesus' presence must have had an impact on them. They became very fond of him. It became a thin line to cross. They had only to believe that he was their Messiah, and they were saved. But for Jesus to win their hearts, he could not have judged them or shown condemnation, and perhaps most important of all, never looked down on them, nor displayed class discrimination, nor turned up his nose over their lack of academic achievements. Instead he loved them and invited them into his Kingdom. Peter and Matthew (or Levi) were two prime examples. Before Jesus came along, the two were sworn enemies, due to Levi's betrayal to the Romans and greater hardship imposed on the fishing trade. But not only did the love of Jesus turned their hostility to friendship and eventually to close brotherhood, but the cursing, swearing fisherman became the chief elder of the church in Jerusalem. Matthew, who most likely hung out with prostitutes (the meaning of "tax collectors and sinners") had the privilege to write his Gospel, which to this day revered as sacred Scripture, equal in inspiration to the writings of Moses. Such is the transforming power of God through love!

The love of Jesus and his friendship with sinners turned the world of his day upside down. Even after his Resurrection and Ascension, people of all classes were amazed at the wisdom and power of the apostles, exclaiming that they were ignorant and unlearned men. The Holy Spirit certainly had no problem with one so unschooled.

Gosh, how different is all this in the UK! Here, in the last few centuries, education played a major role in church leadership. It is a known fact that the gene pool for future leaders of the Anglican Church is to be found at Oxbridge, the two top universities in Britain, if not in the world. As far as I remember, the Archbishop of Canterbury, second only to the Queen, always had "Dr." as his title. For example, our present Archbishop is Dr. Rowan Williams, who has been serving from February 27th, 2003. It is very much a reflection of all our churches in the UK at present.

I used to watch a BBC programme, Last Man Standing, where a group of individuals travelled to different countries to contest in sports known only to the inhabitants. One of the contestants was a student theologian at Oxford University. Not only was he very academic, but he loved playing both rugby and cricket. He was a true-blue Tory-voting Englishman - highly educated, a good sportsman, self reserved, stiff upper lip, stoic and showing emotional restraint. A dynamic contrast to Peter and Matthew! But the very candidate all English church pastors and leaders would fall over themselves to have on their staff, deaconate, eldership or committee.

What amazes me is that if class and academics were so important to church leadership, then surely, England would have the most dynamic churches in the world, together with the highest percentage of the saved in the general population. Of course, how God would have coped with the likes of Peter and Matthew (among others) would be a small matter swept under the carpet. Nevertheless, with the rising tide of academic achievement, spiritual rebirth must follow suit.

Except it is nothing like that. Robert Darwin, for one, was a church minister. He wanted his son, Charles to follow in his footsteps. Instead, he had a far greater interest in biology. His theory of Evolution by Natural Selection paved the way for the greatest abandoning of belief in God the UK had ever suffered. On top of this, I have seen that the evaluation of a person by church elders was usually based on his academic standing rather than spiritual vitality. Within the last forty years, I have watched young graduates, who held to the belief in Evolution, take up leadership among the juniors and even housegroups.

That is a shame. Our church at Ascot is one good example of this cultural bias. A year or two ago, a group of our elders paid a visit to Royal Holloway, part of London University. The result that a group of students joining us every Sunday, swelling the congregation. In part, that is very good. It is an excellent idea that these undergraduates receive sound Bible teaching and fellowship which will guide them through life. I, for one, am all for students pouring into our church for their spiritual edification, teaching and for a closer walk with God. But while this was happening, the common man in the street remain unreached. Little or no effort is made to enter a rowdy pub and absorb the revelling, swearing, crude jokes, smut and whatever that seemed so ungodly in order to win them to the church and salvation in Christ.

Personally, I don't think it's snobbery. I believe it is fear. Fear of intimidation. Exactly the kind of fear felt by Peter and his friends at the time of the Resurrection. Only the Holy Spirit turned their fear to courage and strong love for their fellowman which brought on boldness.

I too felt reserved about confessing our church affiliation to those two guys at the bar. I had to dig into my soul for courage. So this blog is not a put down to the churches in England. Rather it is a plea to let the Holy Spirit fill our lives to love all in every class and academic strata.

Conflict Over Salvation!

In my last posting I began with a full quote of James 2:14-26. Here James wrote that faith within the believer without any works to accompany such faith makes his beliefs lifeless. A "dead" faith does not impress the beholder or in interested inquirer, so I reasoned, especially if the believer says that God exist yet "sucks up" to the rich man at the same time show contempt to the poor man who also happens to walk into the assembly. Snobbery is murder, according to James 2:11.

It was likely that James was rebuking snobbery right through to verse 26, even though there were no verses or chapter breaks in his original letter. We are to this day aware on whether our faith makes an impression on the beholder or not. Nothing can make a finer example on this issue than Christian parents, who attend church regularly, and the way they bring up their children. Children have this distinctive knack of spotting phoniness or hypocrisy in their parent's faith, and snobbery is certainly one of many faith-killers. Statistics indicate that more children of church-goers grow up as atheists than as Christian believers. If the parents' faith is not issuing good works, the child is less likely to take to such faith and will conclude that church attendance is a waste of time.

The core of this issue is verse 14, which reads:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

Most Christians and many churches indicate that the "him" in the emphasised question means that the believer himself was not saved because there were no works to prove or endorse his salvation. It is reading such verses which makes me wish that both James and Paul were still alive and I can talk to them. I would ask why the two apparently disagree on this issue - Do we need to work for our salvation? Or to prove our salvation? Or to secure our salvation? Or even because we are already saved? In fact I would go even further and knock their heads together, telling them to be more specific in what they are telling us, reminding them that the Roman Catholic Church has always used James 2:14 to justify that works are necessary for salvation - and had been doing for the last 1,600 years. And even Martin Luther, who was converted by just reading Romans 1:17 - The just shall live by faith - totally rejected the epistle of James as heresy!

And how do these two apostles apparently disagree? (Note the word apparently.) James asks, "Does such faith (without deeds) save him?" - indicating that the answer to that is "No."

Yet Paul made it very clear, especially in his letter to the Christians in Rome, on how one can be saved. He writes:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified and it is with your mouth you confess and are saved.
Romans 10:9-10.

Earlier in his letter, he wrote:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about - but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited to him as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord would never count against him."
Romans 4:1-8.

Then just for further backing, I quote what Paul wrote to the Ephesians:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. (2:8-9)

So here we see what looks like a blatant contradiction - James versus Paul.

But in Romans 10:9, Paul adds confessing with the mouth that Jesus as Lord as part of the plan. But what does Paul mean when he addresses Jesus as Lord? Those who believe in Lordship salvation believe that the Lordship of Jesus is meant in the realm of an employer - that the believer submits to Jesus in toto as a worker does to his employer. That is not the meaning of the verse.

In the days of ancient Rome, every citizen had to swear his allegiance to the Emperor with the words, Caesar is Lord. Very much like if here in the UK I were to swear my allegiance to Elizabeth II as Her Royal Majesty the Queen. Police and military recruits do this to this day. But this does not make the Queen my employer, but an admission of being a subject in her Kingdom and supporter of the Constitution. While swearing allegiance to the Queen as Head of State and also head of the Church of England, to the Roman citizen, by swearing allegiance to Caesar was admitting that the Emperor was God.

The resurrection of the body was something no one in history had ever achieved, except Jesus Christ, and to this day, nobody else had ever risen from the dead. Instead, the bones of even the greatest saints are still with us, including those of Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, John and Paul. The resurrection of Christ was the ultimate proof that he, and not Caesar, was God. So during the days of the Roman emperor, if the believer confessed Jesus as Lord, he was literally putting his own life in jeopardy. Many were executed for confessing that Jesus was the Christ, not Caesar. Since self-preservation is the greatest instinct in all humans, confession of Jesus being God in the face of persecution can only come from the heart. And to have such a conviction is proof that the heart has been regenerated and has become the seat for the Holy Spirit to dwell in. It's the only way that the fear of death is overcome. Therefore we can conclude that it is the regenerated heart-belief which comes first, which leads to the verbal confession.

The Colosseum in Rome was the site of many Christian executions in the days of Caesar.

Unbelievers in general do not confess Jesus Christ as Lord, even in peaceful times, as at present, in the Western world. But the Bible also indicate that at the Judgement, many of the unsaved will cry out "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in you name, and in your name cast out devils, and in your name done many wonderful works?" (Matthew 7:22.)  According to this, it does look as if  one does acknowledge that Jesus Christ was Lord in the sense of aristocracy, a great teacher, or as one setting an example. But not as God incarnated who died and rose physically from the dead. I once read in a popular national newspaper that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but fell unconscious. Still apparently lifeless, he was taken down from the cross and later recovered to the extent that he was able to walk away to some distant location, never to be seen again. This was a parallel story to that of the Muslims, who believe to this day that it was Judas Iscariot who died on the cross, not Jesus Christ. And not to mention the array of scientists and academics who use the media to deny the reality of Divine Creation in favour of Evolution, which is another way of denying that Jesus Christ is God.

So we can therefore conclude that on a once-for-all-time heart belief in the Resurrection of Christ and the ability to confess this to another person guarantees salvation. It is a reminder of what was stated by the apostle John when he wrote:

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son (and not because he failed to produce appropriate works.)
John 3:14-18.

Now we need to ask: Is there a conflict between Paul and James?

No there is no conflict. By reading the whole letter of James, one should be able to see that it was a rebuke for favouritism, snobbery, chasing after riches and planning for the future without any consideration for God's plans and his will for their lives. It was written mainly to Jews assembling in their local synagogue, although it is easy to imagine a Christian meeting in a Gothic church building with stained glass windows, and inside filled with pews and fronted by a pulpit, and an ageing bell tower outside. But the context of the letter is the same for both. But it appears that James was concerned on how the church looked to an outsider visiting. Would the visitor be judged according to wealth and social status? How would the poor visitor feel after following a rich man into the building and being treated with disdain after watching the rich man being fawned upon? Rather than convert to Christ, he would more likely walk out feeling disgusted.

James wrote:

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did...You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (2:22, 24.)

Justified by whom? By God? God looks on the heart and seeing his belief that Christ was resurrected and therefore must be the true Lord rather than Caesar, fully justifies him. But although his faith is clear before God, it is invisible before men, who cannot see into the heart as God can. So the only way that faith can be manifest is through works. And James takes up the issue here.

Since last week, after posting my last blog on the subject, the feedback which followed has made me sit down and think things over. The words for concern were these:


What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

Abraham had his faith tested by God by telling him to offer his son Isaac upon the altar. But was this because God did not know beforehand how Abraham would respond? There is a serious problem with this idea, namely, the denial of God's omniscience. In other words, God did not know what was going to happen next! So why did God test Abraham's faith, even already knowing the outcome before he was even born? For the benefit of his descendants, and for the benefit of us who believe. Isaac himself told all in the community, and of course, both Jacob and Esau and their sons would have known about it. Not to mention the group of relatives and perhaps hundreds of servants and other associates. Abraham's act of faith had placed his name in the Hall of Fame for all eternity.

But Abraham was justified by faith many years earlier. During that time, there were no specific works done by Abraham. His justification was a heart matter between God and himself. So this is why I believe that the lack of works in the believer would not impress the inquirer or the curious. Such faith is invisible to them.

But there is one more issue that needs to be looked at. In my last article, the words would such faith save him? I had applied this to the inquirer, not to the believer himself. Here is the core of the misunderstanding. If those words were referring to salvation, then indeed, faith alone does not save, we must work to obtain, secure or prove our salvation before God. That was why I believed it was the inquirer if salvation was referred to. And I still believe in this. However, there are other options that may be considered.These are:


1. The verse has nothing to do with salvation. Instead it has to do with the welfare of the poor man. The poor man will not benefit physically if the believer simply says, "I believe in God," but gives nothing to eat or any spare clothing to keep him warm. In this context, the word save, means the poor man saved from the cold and going hungry, with the "him" referring to the poor man, not the believer himself. This is, in my view, a very valid option.


2. The verse refers to the poor man being the unsaved inquirer who, unimpressed with his snobbery and cossetting up to the rich as well as lack of generosity, walks away disgusted. To the poor man, the Christian faith was not worth further consideration. This view is the main subject of this blog and the previous one, and it is the view I more likely to consider, after reading the testimony of not only Charles Dickens, but seeing how people perceive the churches today.


3. The word "him" in verse 14 referring to the believer, not the inquirer or the poor man. If this is true, then this "faith" is only a nominal profession, such as one baptised as a baby, and grows up in a "Christian Country." He would then only attend church for baptisms, weddings and funerals - and perhaps on Christmas Day and Easter Sunday as well. Such nominal adherence to the faith does not regenerate the heart with a new birth of the Spirit which would result in good works. This view is upheld by many Christians and churches alike.

4. This verse agrees with the view of the Roman Catholic Church that faith coupled with works merit salvation. If true, then James contradicts Paul, who insist that faith alone is required for salvation. Akin to this is the view that works is needed to "stay saved," an opinion held by those who believe that salvation can be lost if one does not remain faithful to the end.


These are, I believe, the four different views of James 2:14. Every Christian would adhere to one of these views. As is with this fact that I wish the apostles were alive today, to "blow the gaff" on any views that would turn out to be false. But without any of these apostles, but with the presence of the Holy Spirit within us, that's all about learning about the Kingdom of God. We are students, and I admit that now and again I can get things wrong, as even the apostle Peter also got it wrong (Galatians 2:11-14.) I thank and praise God for his patience and love, and will always correct the thinking of his children with gentleness as a loving Father would.

James, Paul and you too, John - let us enjoy a good hug...

Come On, Lord Sugar, They're Not That bad, Are They?

Ben and Catherene Mullany, both 31, from Pontardawe in South Wales, strutted along the Caribbean beach of Antigua like two proud peacocks as they enjoyed their two-week honeymoon in July, 2008. They where white, middle class and oozing high levels of education, professionalism and in turn, wealth. Their wealthy exuberance were further enhanced by staying at the £330-a-night Cocos Hotel. This would have added up to £4,620 on accommodation alone. On top of this, there would have been the cost of the air tickets, travel insurance and pocket money. I believe that the total cost of the holiday would have been greater than the annual income of many of the locals, many struggling day by day to make ends meet. Then again, their strutting should not have come as a surprise. Ben was once in the Army, followed by a stint as a Police Officer before becoming a student Physiotherapist. His bride, Catherine was a Paediatrician.
Then in the early hours of July 27th, the day they were due to fly back to the UK, two would-be robbers burst into their bedroom. They were suspected as being 23 year old Kaniel Martin and Avie Howell, 20. They shot the sleeping couple each at the back of the head. Catherine was killed instantly. Her husband Ben survived the ordeal, but died a week later at a UK hospital.
The gang got away with just their mobile phone.
Envy struck again.
Maybe, had this couple spent their honeymoon in the UK - sure, at times they would have been bored, stuck in their hotel while the heavy rain clattered on the window panes from outside, then wrapping up warm as they strolled along the wind-swept shingle beach, watching the grey, murky seawater churn on a strip of exposed sand while picking at the hot cod and chips from the large paper wrapper - then who knows, at present Catherine would have had a child crawling across the lounge floor of their home while breastfeeding her newborn. And afterward, after Ben comes in from work, their memories would have relished on their washout of a honeymoon, how it strengthened their bond between them.
Yes, it can be difficult at times to bury my face into a pillow and soak it with my tears over their fate.
Or the case of Gerry and Kate McCann.
Gerry was a Consultant Cardiologist, while Kate was also a Doctor. They with their three children flew to Praia du Luz in Portugal for a holiday during late Spring, 2007. One evening while the children were asleep, they enjoyed a bite at an eatery, close to their apartment. It was then, on 3rd May, that their eldest daughter Madeleine disappeared, presumed kidnapped.
The Media was on the case for weeks to follow. Both the BBC News and the newspapers spewed out article after article on the case of missing Madeleine. It was not surprising that I felt my sympathy dry up after repeated hearings and readings. Then one evening I was browsing the Daily Mail online, and one of the commentators under the McCann article wrote words to this effect:
If Madeleine had been the daughter of a single mother working as a Tesco Shelf-Stacker somewhere up North, this case would have been long forgotten!
I had fully identified with this writer. The British Establishment have a reverence for the higher standing, don't they?
As in the case of the 2012 London Olympics. Again, according to the Daily Mail article published a couple of weeks previous to this, 250,000 of the UK's public applied for seats at the 80,000 seat athletic (Track & Field) stadium. Of these, 36,000 were allocated, leaving the rest - 44,000 to private sponsors.
In all, these sponsors contribute £1.4 billion to the Games. If this seem a large contribution, it will be dwarfed by the £12 billion of taxpayer's money. (In this article, the Imperial billion is used, which is 1,000,000,000,000.)
Of some of the sponsors, head of FIFA, Sepp Blatter and his colleagues will enjoy a £1,500,000 mega-freebie and at the same time stay at the May Fair Hotel at a much reduced price, while competitors themselves were unable to secure their families with accommodation.
Even the Government is giving freebies to it VIPs and dignitaries. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport had spent £750,000 for 9,000 seats at the stadium. This equals £83.33 per seat.
Newspapers have labelled the ticketing ballot "grossly unfair" to the British public, whose taxes makes up the largest proportion of funding, yet Lord Sebastian Coe, 1980s Olympic 800 metre champion and Tory MP, says that the ballot was seamless.

Track & Field Stadium

Is it another way of showing class favouritism?
Staying with sport, this article was written at the start of the 2011 Wimbledon Tennis season. Our star is Andrew Murray, the only Brit who stands a chance to win the Grand Slam at the men's singles final. Murray may be Britain's only hope, but unfortunately for the English, Murray is a Scotsman. The only Englishman ever to win the Grand Slam was Fred Perry, a son of a coal miner, who in 1934 defeated Australian Jack Crawford.
As the story goes, the officials would not present the trophy to a coal miner's son. So he was told to lift it himself. But the officials were much happier to present the runner up prize to the upper/middle class Australian. By 1936, Perry felt so betrayed by the fierce snobbery within the All England Lawn Tennis Club that he defected to the USA.
Nowadays bankers makes a good example of the Middle classes, the backbone, so we read in the newspapers, that holds Britain together and acts as a power engine for its economy. They are generally hated by the public for their pre-credit crunch greed, but still given adoring respect by the Establishment.
One good example of this was Sir Fred "The Shred" Goodwin, former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland. At his present age of 52, I take it that he was one of the 1980s City Yuppies, and therefore one of "Thatcher's Children". (Yuppie is the acronym for "Young Urban Professional." - now generally obsolete.) Goodwin as head of the RBS brought the Bank to its knees, and it would have gone bust had it not been bailed out by the taxpayer. Yet for this dramatic failure, he was knighted in 2004 for "Services in Banking". He resigned in October 2007 and is the recipient of a £700,000 pension pot.
There were many MPs in Parliament who lobbied to have Goodwin stripped of his Knighthood, but as far as I know, the Establishment had allowed him to keep it.
So it was of little surprise that by watching The Apprentice a couple of weeks ago, that I felt a smidgen of satisfaction when Lord Alan Sugar swore at contestant Jim Eastwood for bringing his task to ruin for the rest of his team.

Lord Alan Sugar

Perhaps what makes The Apprentice so entertaining is the way Lord Sugar takes these contestants down a peg or two when faced with failure. And in view of the whole nation, which I think, enjoys blaming them for the economic mess, the Recession and spiralling inflation with which we all suffer. A man in a suit is an easy target, isn't it?
But it is one thing to point the finger at the Establishment. It is quite another to see class discrimination and favouritism within the churches.
Neither the Establishment nor the public need to be reproved for class favouritism. They don't need such reproof. What they need instead is individual conviction of sin and the need of the Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Salvation is their need, not mere reproof. But Christian believers are very different. They uphold Jesus Christ as Saviour and their Lord, but I have still seen class favouritism among English churches. Plenty of it.
On a personal front, the attitude shown among Christian believers leaves a lot to be desired. Back in the 1970s and the 1980s, I was a member of what was Bracknell Baptist Church, the forerunner of the present Kerith Community Church. Members of my age were very forward with their University degrees, especially when communicating with the opposite sex, or seeking favours or responsibilities from the Elders. They tended to rate class as a more personal importance than their love and commitment to Christ. Youth leadership were chosen by the elders apparently by their level of education rather than of spirituality, as some discredited Divine Creation in favour of Evolution, therefore calling God a liar (for declaring that He made everything in six days when actually to them this was not true). Oddly, I found that nearly all the graduates who joined our church in my younger days believed in Evolution, and held their degrees and social class as high priorities.

We are one in Christ. No class favouritism here

Here I'm in danger as playing the judge. Everyone is accountable to God, and to God only, not to any of us. Therefore I have no right to act as a judge. God alone will judge us all.
But we believers need to take heed of what the Apostle James wrote to believers who were snobbish in his day. In chapter 2 of his letter, he wrote how bad it was to pay honour to a well dressed man who enters the assembly, and then treats a man in unbecoming clothes who also walks in with scornful disrespect. He calls this murder and therefore no better than a physical killing. Snobbery, class favouritism, honouring the rich, showing disrespect to the poor, shunning humble tasks - all these things are classed as murder and should not be seen among Christian believers.
Rather, we should put Jesus before national or class superiority. I would say that being filled with the Holy Spirit will dispose of such attitudes.
After all, we shall all die, and then all these things we be done away with. They are not eternal.
I bet Ben and Catherine Mullany would have wished to have walked along the cold, wet windswept beach in the UK with their raincoats flapping in the breeze instead of the warm, calm sunny tropical Antigua's beach lapped gently by the turquoise blue sea.