The Emmaus Experience

The Bible contains the greatest stories ever told. An outstanding one is found in Luke 24, the story of Cleopas and his companion on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus and their encounter with the risen Lord. We can observe three distinct phases in their experience as they discover Christ is alive. The experiences of believers today follow similar patterns. Christ is risen indeed! His bodily resurrection is an incontrovertible fact. However, our experience of the risen Christ can often bear a striking resemblance to the sequence of events described here.

 

The Downcast Heart - Wrong

This is where many believers find themselves. Like the Emmaus Two they seem oblivious to the fact Christ is risen. There is such a thing as clinical depression but with many believers it is not that. They are simply down-hearted. Note the characteristics of the downcast heart.

• It cannot be cured by company, even exalted company. We get downcast for different reasons. Often the best way to deal with it is to find company. Too much solitude can be harmful. Christian friendship and fellowship are important means of grace that we neglect at our peril. Nevertheless it is possible to be so downcast that not even the best of company delivers us. We come to church. We try to pray and praise. But if Christ is unrecognised we will remain in the dumps.
• One of the greatest problems when a Christian is in this sort of state is that he fails to recognise his blessings. The Emmaus Two were totally dejected because of the death of Christ. Yet there he was right next to them! Their lack of expectation and Jesus’ transformed appearance combined to blind them to reality. Are your low expectations driving you into dejection? Are you missing blessings right under your nose?
• It is not that the downcast Christian fails to recognise anything of the power and glory of Christ and his kingdom. The problem is that he tends to dwell on the darker side. A great pessimism seems to descend.
• When this pessimism takes a grip it can lead to reading even the most favourable circumstances in a bad light. The Emmaus Two had heard rumours of Jesus’ resurrection but pessimism blinded them.
• We must label this attitude with its proper title. Let no glamour be attached to long faced, moody Christianity. It is nothing but slowness of heart and unbelief. To behave in this way is dull-witted and foolish. It cannot be excused. It cannot be countenanced. Jesus rebukes it firmly. It must have no place in his kingdom.

We recognise that such times may come even to the best of believers but they must be fiercely resisted.

 

The Burning Heart - Better

What is the way out of the gloom?

• Having Christ present and hearing him speak. The two were downcast. Perhaps they were trying to cheer each other up. Then along comes a stranger. The natural reaction would be to let him pass by. Thankfully, they do not. It is tempting sometimes to cut ourselves off from fellowship when we are downcast. That is dangerous. It is tempting to stop reading the Bible. That is even more dangerous.
• It is particularly in the expounding of the Scriptures that Jesus draws near to these two. The cure for spiritual depression is always found in God’s Word. Counselling and conferences may help but it is the Word itself that does the business. Keep coming to the Word.
• Now you may say ‘But I’ve been pretty down at times and even though I’ve turned to the Word I’ve got nothing.’ But when Jesus explained the Scriptures he showed how they spoke about him. If you read the Bible and do not find Christ there you will remain discouraged. The great thing about God’s Word is that it reveals Jesus to us. Always read looking to see him in it.
• Does your heart burn within when you hear the Bible explained? Are you excited when you find Christ in his Word? This ‘burning’ was not just emotion. These two were transformed. At first the stranger had seemed like an intruder but now they did not want him to go. They urge him to come home with them. Once you know Christ drawing near you never want to lose his presence again.
• The burning heart is the heart that has begun to believe again. Pessimism and unbelief are vanquished. It begins again to look at Christ and trust in him.

 

The Rejoicing Heart - Best

This should be the normal state of believers - rejoicing in the risen Lord Christ. This is the capstone in the movement from depression to rejoicing. When Christ draws near, do not miss your opportunity. Seize it with both hands. Note that.

• The rejoicing heart may come in the homeliest environment. In ordinary places at ordinary times our eyes may be opened to the truth and our hearts stirred to rejoicing. It does not have to wait for a special place or occasion.
• The rejoicing heart comes when your eyes open and you recognise Christ. It is not enough to go through the motions of prayer and Bible reading, etc. Christ was present for a long time before they saw him. Pray that you will not be impervious so long when Christ draws near to you.
• The rejoicing heart is a source of energy. These two who had dragged their way the seven miles from Jerusalem thought nothing of returning there that same night. Seeing Christ produces zeal and strength even for the weakest and slowest.
• The rejoicing heart wants to speak about the risen Christ. It is eager to tell others, to share the good news. Much of our lethargy in evangelism stems from our failure to see Christ.
• The rejoicing heart is one that understands the truth and believes it. May God give you a rejoicing heart now and always.

This article first appeared in Grace Magazine

The sadness of feminism

Germaine Greer is a leading feminist. An Australian, she came to study in England in 1964 and has lived in this country ever since. An academic and a writer she shot to fame in 1970 with her best selling book The Female Eunuch, an analysis of attitudes toward women and a call for an end to what she saw as sexual repression. Her most recent book [1999], The Whole Woman, another best seller, continues in the same feminist groove but surprises other feminists at times with its conclusions.

By now in her sixties, she recently produced an article for Aura magazine that was also featured in the Daily Mail. That paper described the article as a ‘searingly honest testimony’ under the headline, ‘How one baby lit up my life in a way no lover ever could’.

Here we summarise her story as a reminder of the many people all around us who feel badly let down by lives lived according to the accepted rules of the day.

 

Babies are bad news

She begins by telling how she grew up to believe that babies were seriously bad news. Pregnancy meant ‘morning sickness, bloating and loss of looks’; babies just unleashed a whole set of other unpleasant problems. She was taught to have a ‘good time’ before facing the horrors of pregnancy and bringing up children. One of the problems with this was that a promiscuous lifestyle was considered to be essential. ‘We all lived in fear of ‘being late’’ she writes and describes some of the desperate measures contemporaries took to deal with an ‘unwanted pregnancy’.
She herself took to using a ‘Grafenburg ring’, an early form of IUD. This led to problems with her reproductive organs. During a laparotomy to investigate this, it was necessary to perform a four hour emergency operation and she was told, incorrectly as it turned out, that she would never be able to have children. This was followed, nevertheless, by two pregnancies and, sadly, two abortions. In the first case at least, it was the thought of being ‘condemned to the life of the impoverished single mother of a handicapped child’ that filled her with terror and led to the ‘termination’.

Scrumptious, delicious, adorable
In the middle of all this she describes how she helped out a pregnant student by providing her with an emergency roof over her head. She describes how, despite forebodings that ‘quality of life would take a nosedive’, she found the trials of dealing with a screaming baby a delight. In a line that will come as no surprise to most parents she says ‘I found her scrumptious, delicious, ineffable, adorable ….’ Sadly, this reaction also astonished her. Not until then had she realised the tremendous joy that only children can give.
Ms Greer continued to engage in fornication but now avoided using any contraception. However, she was apparently unable to become pregnant despite what was now a great longing. A visit to an expensive Harley Street clinic served only to worsen the situation. Another expensive gynaecologist was able to repair the damage by means of microsurgery but an apparent pregnancy turned out only to be a phantom one.

Gynaecologist
Soon she reached the age of 40 and her gynaecologist informed her that from this point on, if there was a pregnancy, he would expect her to have amniocentesis. Interestingly, she told him that by this time she had no intention of aborting a child even if it was suffering from Downs syndrome. He was shocked by this. She in turn was shocked at his opposition to her point of view, although it would perhaps be a typical one in the medical profession.
Despite great efforts to get pregnant before the onset of menopause, it never happened. Like others in her situation she has considered adoption. The fact that she was single and that in this country most children available for adoption are those with many problems precluded this. She rightly finds the idea of buying a child from poor third world parents morally repugnant. Towards the end she describes a dream in which she finds an abandoned baby girl in a rubbish skip. She takes the child to the table but finds its head crawling with ants. She has no doubts that this dream was an expression of her deep seated desire to be a mother. She still dreams that somehow one day she will be able to adopt a child.

Our response
The article is far from being a retraction of her leading ideas. Much less is Ms Greer saying ‘I repent of sin’. However, she has come to the point where she can see that despite the vaunted glories of the humanist lifestyle she, for one, is full of regret, at least as far as her never having been a mother is concerned. There are many reasons why people do not have children but in this case the problem is chiefly an unbiblical lifestyle. It is not our purpose here to gloat. The article moves one to compassion rather. Ms Greer is typical of many, no doubt, who are reluctant to abandon their anti-scriptural stances but have begun to see at least some of the limitations of their chosen road.
This article first appeared in Grace Magazine.

What's in a name? Chapel names

If your church meets in a chapel, does it have a name? I have belonged to two or three Baptist churches in my time, each named after its location. However, many chapels do have names, especially where there is more than one in a town. Some have quietly dropped these names in recent times, feeling their work is not helped by issuing invitations to ‘Come to Ebenezer’ or ‘Join us at Zion’. Most, however, continue to use these ancient, and often well loved, names. Some new churches have even incorporated a name into the title of the church itself, such as Cornerstone, Immanuel, Gateway, Grace, Lifeline, Trinity, Vineyard or Church of the Good Shepherd. Meanwhile, Rehoboths, Hopes and Providences continue to abound.

Until 1689 Baptists had no chapels as such. Before the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 they had made use of parish churches and other public buildings where possible and then, under threat of persecution, had resorted to using private homes. This arrangement created its own difficulties and so where possible, like other Nonconformists, they built or bought chapels in which to meet. Sometimes congregations would share facilities but more often each church became identified with one specific building. From the 1740s at least the practice began of identifying these buildings with names. As Nonconformity flourished in the 19th Century so each new chapel erected often bore a particular name to distinguish it from others. Soon, potentially confusing phrases such as ‘I belong to Hope’ or ‘I’m going to Emmaus’ became common place.

Parish churches have for long ages been traditionally connected with the names of saints, as in St Luke’s, St Philip and St James’s St Michael and All Angels or All Saints. At least one church in Wales bears Peter’s Aramaic name (Cephas) but most Nonconformists in England and Wales eschewed this practice and struck out on different paths. In America they, unimaginatively, speak usually of First Baptist, Second Baptist, Ninth Presbyterian, Tenth. Here names were chosen, mainly from the Bible, for usually obvious reasons. Bethel is ‘House of God’; Emmanuel, ‘God with us’. Providence acknowledges God’s provision of a meeting place; Jireh is ‘The Lord will provide’ and Ebenezer ‘Up until now the Lord has helped us’.

In some instances you learn something about a chapel from its name. Enon has to be a Baptist church. Enon you recall was where John the Baptist baptised because there was much water there. Tabernacles, like God’s house in the Old Testament, are relatively large as are the rarer Temples. Babell Apostolic in Aberdare, South Wales, gets its name from the Welsh word for tent not the place where the tower was built! Bethel means house of God and Zoar (meaning ‘Little place’) should be smaller, just as Rehoboth should be larger, or an extension work, as the name means Room. It was the name given to a well by Isaac following a time of strife. Perhaps in some instances that thought is in the background. Zoar is, of course, where Lot fled from Sodom and Gomorrah and so suggests a place of refuge from wickedness.

The idea of refuge is also there in the popular Elim, Place of rest, and the unusual Cave of Adullam, where all in distress, debt or despair resorted to David. The Ark clearly suggests a welcome for all creatures great and small. The name Lighthouse or Beacon, like The Bridge, though not directly from Scripture, make similar points. The name Hebron was probably selected with a similar thought. It was a city of refuge. City of Refuge spells out the point. Gilead, of course, is the place for soothing balm. Welsh Noddfa, like the French L’Abri (used by Francis Schaeffer), both mean shelter or refuge. The name Elim, the name of an oasis where Israel stayed in the desert, is one of many examples where biblical place names have been adopted. Use has been made of Bethany, where Jesus loved to stay; Bethlehem, perhaps with the thought of its meaning, house of bread; Calvary, Latin for the place of the skull, where Christ died; Emmaus, where after his resurrection he broke bread and Jerusalem, Caersalem (in Wales) or Salem, which means peace. Galilee and Gethsemane also exist. Gilgal, interestingly, is where the Israelites rededicated themselves to God in Joshua’s time. Peniel is where Jacob met God face to face yet lived. Nazareth and Goshen are understandable choices too, as is Eden for there Adam and Eve met with God. Why Ramah or Shiloh should be chosen is not immediately clear, though the latter was where the Tabernacle used to be.
Then there are the mountains: Ararat, Carmel, Hermon, Moriah, Nebo, Olivet, Pisgah, Tabor, Zion, even Horeb or Sinai. Bethesda and Siloam were pools in Jerusalem connected with healing miracles of Jesus. Antioch is inspired by the New Testament church of that name. Of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation, only Sardis and Smyrna are usually used, for obvious reasons. (Philadelphia is known as it means brotherly love). The story is told, however, of a church in the southern states of America that left a great deal to be desired and was a great discouragement to its faithful pastor. They decided they wanted to give a name to their chapel but could not fix on one until some mischievous or ignorant soul suggested Laodicea. When they came to the pastor for his opinion he had to admit that it was a most appropriate name for that particular church to choose! And so it was given the name Laodicea.
There is evidence that as the 19th Century wore on our Victorian fathers tired of this naming game. They would sometimes resort to the practice of calling chapels after influential figures of the near or distant past, as in Latimer Memorial, Chalmers Memorial, Martyrs Memorial, Carey Baptist or Kensit Evangelical.
Others simply looked for more unusual names. Some went to Isaiah for Hephzibah and Beulah. Galeed means ‘Heap of witness’. Lebanon looks like a topographical reference but refers more to the cedar of Lebanon, symbolic of God’s strength. Similarly, Sharon refers to the Rose of Sharon mentioned in Song of Solomon and long accepted as a title for the Lord Jesus. Some common names today among the more conservative are Grace and Christ Church. Trinity continues to be used too. Church on the rock is an attractive name. Some people can get hot under the collar on this subject but it is not really one to get het up about. Provided we remember that the church and the building are two different things and that there is nothing in the New Testament about chapels as such, we should not go too far wrong.
Meanwhile let us not forget this largely incidental but interesting part of evangelical and Nonconformist culture which has its own lessons to teach. May each of our Bethels and Zions and Temples truly be the houses of God; may the prophets of Baal be challenged at Carmel; may we not forget the Lord’s past help at Ebenezer. And if your chapel does not have a specific name remember that he who walks among the candlesticks has a white stone with a secret new name for all who come to him. The names of all his churches are indelibly written on the palms of his hands.
This article first appeared in Grace Magazine

How we lose our ministers

Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. Zechariah 13:7 refers to the Good Shepherd and his disciples but reminds us of the vulnerability of the local church when its pastor is struck. Pastors are struck in various ways. In these dark days every loss is keenly felt. We lose pastors in different ways. In some cases we can probably do little to prevent it, in others may be we can.

We lose them,

1. Through death

Paul tells the Philippians that to go on living means fruitful labour but if he dies, he will be with Christ, which is better by far. It is more necessary for you he says that I remain. He was convinced he would remain for their progress and joy in the faith and that is what we should pray for – long, fruitful lives for ministers. What we can do practically is limited but perhaps we can do something. It is tragic when faithful ministers die short of a full threescore and ten. Whatever happens, as Paul says, we must, however, conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel, thankful for the past and looking to the Lord for the future.

2. Through illness

Some remain alive but are so incapacitated that they retire early or are away from pastoral work for extended periods. Some churches get into the situation where their minister is frequently away with ill health. It is difficult to be sure of the effect but surely we ought to encourage ministers to establish good patterns of work and rest, eat sensibly, exercise and not neglect their health. Perhaps deacons should arrange regular medical check ups. A previous generation spoke of ‘burning out for God’. By that they meant being consumed with zeal in sacrificial service not neglecting physical health. Today there is little call for even the most zealous to do anything to endanger health. In some cases the pastor’s wife is unwell. Similar points could be made in that direction.

3. Through stress

In some cases ill health is psychosomatic. Men also leave the ministry due to stress. Again, there are various factors. Perhaps things can be done to lessen stress. The rediscovery of elders has helped some but increased the stress for others! Certainly all churches should have a system of burden sharing. Obviously relieving the minister of financial worries is important, where possible. Providing a pension scheme and exercising sensitivity when discussing his stipend are important. A good family situation is vital, as is fellowship with other ministers. Good churches encourage ministers to attend at least one conference a year. Regular sabbaticals are also useful. There is no avoiding stress in the ministry but steps should be taken to relieve it where possible and to be alert to danger signals. Better to give a man a month off than lose him for good.

4. Through doctrinal error

Many ministers change their views over the years. None of us has reached maturity and so we reckon with the possibility of being wrong. In most cases these are areas where the church has never formally expressed convictions. However, it sometimes happens that a minister comes to conclusions that run counter to the church’s doctrinal standards. Where this happens there has to be a parting of ways. Sadly, what sometimes happens is that the church is almost unwittingly won over to the new doctrine. This is dishonest of preachers and naïve of members. Often the problem stems back to lack of rigour when selecting a new pastor. Pastors ought to be doing all they can to ground churches in sound doctrine.

5. Through known immorality

A sad feature of our day is the number who fall into immorality. We think chiefly of sexual immorality but there can be financial irregularity and other open sins. Perhaps the problem of teenage rebellion from pastors children comes in here. One is very slow to say this closes the door to future ministry. We do not want to make ‘Thou shalt not get caught’ the eleventh commandment or make adultery the unforgivable sin. However, once a man falls into open sin it will take a great deal to restore him if it can be done at all. How we must pray that God will preserve ministers from such open sins. What an excuse it gives to the unbeliever.

6. Through entrance to another ministry

The question of moving from one pastorate to another can be vexed. Generally speaking, long pastorates are ideal. However, not all are able to sustain a long-term pastorate and larger churches will inevitably draw pastors from smaller churches rather than thrusting men into positions of great responsibility in their youth. The needs overseas are also very great. Nevertheless, all should think long and hard before such changes. Sometimes men leave local church ministry to engage in para-church work. It would be better for both the para-church and local churches if ways could be found of allowing men to continue their pastoral work, even part-time, while also doing other work. In these days of increased tele-working this is more feasible than ever. Far better two good men doing para-church work part-time than losing one or both completely from pastoral ministry.

7. Through rejection

There are men who minister in a local church but are forced out because the doctrine they preach is unacceptable. There is no shame for a man in this but much heartache. Sometimes there has been a lack of tact and certainly one needs to have patience and wisdom in dealing with people, especially where they are ill-taught. What fearful judgement awaits those who reject faithful ministry.

8. Through lack of opportunity

There are men who feel called to the ministry but never have opportunity to exercise their gifts in a settled pastorate. We recognise that to desire to be a minister is not the only criterion for judging whether one is called. However, surely it is possible that some men looking for pastorates unsuccessfully are victims of the failure of others – failure to trust the Lord for finance, to recognise gifts that need nurturing, to accept a ministry a little less predictable than most. Food for thought.

9. Through lack of finance

Some situations are precarious and it only takes the removal of one or two wage earners to tip the balance. There are several funds able to supply short-term support. Why do churches appeal for help with bricks and mortar but not to provide ministry? It is not ideal but there is no shame in a man supporting himself for a period. What he loses in time for ministry on the one hand he may well gain as opportunities open up through his work. Where able churches deliberately fail to provide for their ministers they sin against the Lord.

10. Through pre-occupation

In thinking about this subject and in light of the fact preparing it takes time from more obvious pastoral work one has to consider the possibility that one can be in the ministry and yet not of it. There are men who spend more time on the golf course than at their desk, but this is rare among evangelicals. More common is the temptation to spend time on delegable administration, ferrying people from place to place or sitting on endless para-church committees. This is a trap to avoid. Churches must be alert to the danger. It is important, on the other hand, that ministers do not endeavour to avoid the problem by selfishly opting out of anything not directly concerned with the local church. If all pulled their weight, may be others could do less.

This article first appeared in Grace Magazine

What about organ transplants?

 

The subject of human organs has been in the news recently, following revelations about happenings at Alder Hey hospital.* How well thought through are we on the topic? The following brief discussion has been prepared mainly in the light of various articles available on the world-wide web.

 

Transplants

Medical practitioners are keen to get their hands on human organs both for medical research and organ transplants. Transplantation involves taking a section of tissue or a complete organ from its original site and transferring it to another. The term (like ‘graft’) is from the world of horticulture. Transplants are most often from one individual to another (allograft). Xenotransplantation involves transplanting organs from one species to another, eg from pigs to humans. Transplanting of foetal-tissual, except perhaps where spontaneous abortion has occurred, is abhorrent to most evangelical Christians. Since the first transplant in 1954 such surgery has become ever more widespread and increasingly successful, especially since the advent of good immuno-suppressive drugs. It is now possible to transplant some 25 organs and tissues, including corneas, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, skin, bone and cartilage, and more. A single donor may help as many as 60 recipients. However, while waiting lists for organ donation are continually high, the number of donors is low.

 

Live donor

Most transplants are cadaveric. In some cases, however, live transplant is possible (eg a kidney). Results with organs from live donors are slightly better than cadaveric ones. All operations involve some risk to life and so only in exceptional circumstances can such an operation be justified. Kant called it partial suicide but it is better to speak of how anatomical integrity is lost but functional integrity remains. This is why most would see live donation of a kidney (or blood or bone marrow) as acceptable but of a cornea as unacceptable. Provided no undue pressure is placed on a person to make a live donation and provided he is able to act in a fully informed way surely there can be no objection to the practice. However, if the living donor is not a blood relative (as British law requires) in a stable relationship with the recipient there are potential problems. The selling of organs by live donors is unacceptable.

 

The Bible

Most professing Christians, from Amish to Wesleyan, see organ donation as a good thing but usually accept that decisions on such matters must be left to individual conscience. In 1984, the evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Missouri-Synod) passed a resolution stating that organ donation contributes to the well-being of humanity and can be ‘an expression of sacrificial love for a neighbour in need.’ They call on ‘members to consider donating organs and to make any necessary family and legal arrangements, including the use of a signed donor card.’ In 1989 American Wesleyans noted that ‘one of the ways that a Christian can do good is to request that their body be donated to a medical school for use in teaching.’

As for what the Bible has to say about organ transplantation, this is not immediately obvious. Perhaps Galatians 4:19 is a favourable text. Paul reminds the Galatians how when he had originally come to them, suffering from a disease (one that affected his eyes) they had been so concerned that, if possible, they would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him. This is a figure of speech but Paul has no innate problem with the idea and this may be significant. Jesus’s figurative words about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands may also be relevant. Perhaps we can say the same for the fact that on becoming a Christian one is spiritually grafted into Christ’s body. Many a preacher, taking his cue from Scripture, has seized on the imagery of a heart transplant as a vivid picture of the change necessary in all our lives if we are to know eternal life. Perhaps the Lord’s example of laying down his life for sinners so that by his death we may know life, an act motivated by compassion and love, is the best light in which to consider this matter. Surely the Christian is to do good wherever he can – dead or alive.

To draw out negative arguments is more difficult. There are prohibitions against being united to another person outside marriage but this clearly refers to sexual union. Some are troubled by the thought of their donation preserving a wicked sinner. The over-arching truth that it is better to save life than to kill is surely answer enough to that thought. The Good Samaritan shows us the way forward. Some may raise the question of how God can raise a body from death when it has been divided. But this problem extends to those who have lost organs or limbs in life, some dismembered and scattered at death, those cremated at death and indeed to those buried. A recent cartoon had a buried skeleton commenting on Alder Hey and saying ‘Scandalous!’ God is powerful and has no difficulty in re-assembling our bodies. Ezekiel 36 shows that! Even in life the atoms of our bodies are continually being replaced anyway. We must not be simplistic in our understanding of the resurrection either. Paul does speak of our resurrection bodies as being transformed so that they are imperishable, glorious, powerful and spiritual.

 

Problems

Assuming that the human body is treated with appropriate dignity Christians should have no problem over the basic issue of organ donation. Most problems come further down the line and are to do with the fact that we live in an ungodly society. The whole matter of consent has been to the fore recently. Many would like to move from the position where organs should only be used by consent to one where unless you opt out permission will be assumed. Is that acceptable? Does the body simply belong to the community to do with as it sees fit? As for the high cost of organ transplants this must be weighed against the resultant decrease in medical expenses in other areas (eg dialysis machines). Another issue concerns definitions of death. Donations of major organs are often from patients who have been pronounced ‘brain stem dead’. Some individuals are put on a ventilator simply to help in the process of harvesting organs. Organs are sometimes removed before the ventilator keeping the patient breathing is switched off. As some would argue that ‘brain stem death’ is not necessarily death, there is room for caution. On the other hand, it is only fair to note that transplant teams work quite independently of those dealing with accidents or with other patients. The former are not normally notified until all lifesaving efforts have failed and death has been determined.

The underlying problem in these areas and others is an understandable and widely held perception that the medical profession cannot always be trusted. If this is fair, it needs to be borne in mind when making decisions about organ donation or allowing our bodies to be used for medical research when we are gone. One other thing to be borne in mind in the latter case is that the usual funeral shortly after death is not possible.

*The Alder Hey organs scandal involved the unauthorised removal, retention, and disposal of human tissue, including children's organs, during the period 1988 to 1995.

Originally published in Grace Magazine

The Unequal Yoke

Satan works on many fronts. On one front, he lures Christians into marrying unbelievers. How sad to see a Christian woman and her children sat in church with no husband. If he is sick, that is a pity. If he has gone to glory, sadness is tinged with joy. He is now in heaven. If he does not want to come to church, how truly sad. How did this happen? Is he backslidden? Has she been converted since marrying? Or has she deliberately married an unbeliever? How regrettable that she should have caused herself and others unnecessary sadness.

It is not just a Sunday sadness. Where one partner believes and the other does not, everything is affected. They do not pray or read the Bible together. They do not open their home to needy believers or seeking unbelievers. Fundamental differences mean some subjects are never discussed.

Such believers usually have to be content with a low level commitment to Christ. As Paul warns, the married person thinks not only about the Lord’s affairs - how to please him, but also about how to please her partner (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). How difficult when your spouse is an unbeliever. Will he want to come to church twice on Sundays or even be happy for you to attend regularly? Will he be happy for you to go to prayer meeting? Will he encourage you to teach Sunday School? Will he want to accompany you to a Christian conference?

And what about any children? Will you agree on their education? Will your unbelieving spouse be happy for you to pray with them and read the Bible every day? Will the wife, if she is the unbeliever, be happy when, in reply to the children’s questions, you explain you are going to heaven but mummy is going to hell unless she repents?

What about Samson? His parents objected to him marrying a Philistine, but it says they did not know that this was from the Lord (Judges 14:4). You pray for your spouse’s conversion. We dare not rule out God's Providence. Sometimes the individual has little choice over whom they marry (think of Esther) but God over-rules and converts the unbeliever. Even where a believer deliberately marries an unbeliever God sometimes graciously saves. But are we to presume on God's kindness? What does Paul say? How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? The reverse is more likely. The unbeliever is more likely to drag the believer down than the believer to drag the unbeliever up. By God’s grace, it does happen but do not assume it.

 

Old Testament

Both Testaments oppose believers deliberately marrying unbelievers. For much of the Old Testament period God worked almost exclusively among the Jews. It is true that some godly men, like Joseph and Moses, married women who were not Jewish. No doubt they believed what their husbands believed, although we know Moses’ first wife, Zipporah, opposed circumcision (see Exodus 4). Otherwise mixed marriages were taboo.

Different interpretations are given of Genesis 6:1-3. John Murray (Principles of Conduct) argues convincingly that the sons of God are believers and the daughters of men unbelievers. Their intermarriage is connected to God’s decision to destroy the world. In Genesis 26:34, 35 we read that Esau married two Hittite women - a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah, no doubt because of their paganism. Exodus 34:15, 16 and Deuteronomy 7:3,4 warn against marrying Canaanites who would lead God’s people astray.

Ezra 9 tells us that some returning exiles had intermarried with pagans. The godly Ezra's negative reaction makes clear how serious is marriage to an unbeliever. Similarly think of Nehemiah (13:23-28) sternly reacting to the same sin. He reminds them that it was through pagan wives that Solomon fell. Particularly poignant here is the reminder of the effect of such marriages on children.

 

New Testament

Where only one parent is a believer children are still ‘holy’ (1 Corinthians 7:15) but to have even one unbelieving parent is still disadvantageous. 1 Corinthians 7:39 reads, A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she chooses, but he must belong to the Lord (literally, It must be in the Lord). What Paul says here about second marriages is equally true for first marriages.

Then there is 2 Corinthians 6:14,15, Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? Etc. Under the Law, the Jews were forbidden to plough using different animals under one yoke. It is inefficient and cruel. Paul is not talking directly about marriage but what he says applies to the yoke of marriage. It must not be unequal.

Marriage to an unbeliever is not the unforgivable sin. However, it is dangerous. Unbelievers differ in their opposition to the gospel. He may come to church, he may even be seeking the Lord. However, whatever his state, by marrying him you put a strain on him and on yourself that need not be there.

 

Practically

• Married to an unbeliever? This may be due to later conversion, ignorance, backsliding, etc. If it is due to disobedience or lack of faith you must repent. Confess any sin involved and ask for grace to improve. 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 makes clear how to proceed, otherwise. If your spouse is willing to stay, good. If not, there is no guarantee you will convert them. 1 Peter 3:1-7 explains further how to live in such a situation.
• Engaged to an unbeliever? This is slightly different. It is possible, if unlikely, that your intended will be willing to break the engagement if you carefully explain the situation. Otherwise, you must keep your promise. A broken engagement is not easy but it is certainly preferable to divorce or the unhappiness of not being able to serve Christ as you might wish
• Presently unattached? Which is better? Remaining single, a difficult calling but God's gift to many Christians, or marrying an unbeliever who may turn you from Christ or hamper your Christian service. Be careful in forming relationships with anyone unconverted or backslidden. Acquaintance can become friendship, friendship love .... Once that happens it will be difficult to back pedal. Take care.

I am a sinner

 

I am a sinner. It takes only a second to say. A child can say it. We can all say it easily enough, given the circumstances. Yet some people go fifty, sixty, seventy years or more and never use the phrase. Despite the accumulation of evidence, they will not say it. They will not admit it. They refuse to confess. Yet until we do say it, there is no way for us to come to God. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us. But while a person refuses to acknowledge that he is a sinner, while we deny our sin, we are liars and the truth is not in us.

I am a sinner. It takes only a second to say. A child can say it. We can all say it easily enough, given the circumstances. But merely saying it is never enough. We must understand what it means and we must mean what we say. Not only so, but we must grow in our understanding of what it means and in the extent to which we mean what we say. Can you say ‘I am a sinner’? If so, do you understand what that means? And do you really mean what you say? A sinner is someone who has broken the holy law of Almighty God. When I say I am a sinner, I mean I have broken the holy law of Almighty God. More,

• I mean I was born a sinner. From the earliest moment, I was a sinner. At conception I was a sinner. In the womb I was a sinner. All my life I have been a sinner. Not a day has passed that I have not sullied with sin. I have transgressed God’s holy law every day. God’s standards are clear. Yet every day, to a greater or lesser extent, I have fallen short of those standards. In me there is a rebellious spirit that, like a magnet, is instinctively drawn to do what is opposed to God’s will. It is in my nature to do what displeases him. Given the opportunity, left to myself, I will do what is against God. My instinct is to oppose God’s law, always to go in the opposite direction to that which he desires.
• I mean I am totally depraved by nature. No, I am not as bad as I could be. I could be worse. But there is not one part of my life, not one element in my make-up that is untainted by sin. Not only do I do what offends God. Not only do I say what repels him. Not only do I think in a way that at times is utterly repugnant to him. More, my body, my psyche, my genetic make-up, my habits, my thought processes, my instincts and reactions, my conscience, the very way my life is structured in some instances, are all fatally flawed. Worse, my prayers, my worship, my witness, my Christian service - this is all blemished too; spotted with sin. The best thing I have ever done is less than perfect, marred by sin. Even the admission ‘I am a sinner’ is not a flawless admission. It too smacks of pride, which is sin.

It is not easy to write such things honestly. It is not easy to honestly believe such things about oneself. It is devastating at times. But these are the facts. This is the reality. I am riddled with sin. Polluted. Contaminated. The damp of sin has got in everywhere. The rot of sin has gone right through. The dirt of sin is grained in.

• Perhaps most daunting is the fact that when I say I am a sinner I mean that I will continue to be a sinner for the rest of my natural life. While I remain on this earth, I will be a sinner. Not a day will go by without some sin to confess. No matter how sanctified I become, no matter how determined I am, I will still sin. I will hurt people and let them down. Relationships will be soured. Worse, I will displease God directly. I will offend him. My heavenly father’s law will be flouted. I will, as it were, add to the sufferings of Christ. I will grieve the Holy Spirit. Not a day will pass that is not marked by sinful attitudes, thoughts and actions.

It all sounds very dispiriting. Is it any wonder that people are slow to own up to being sinners? We inevitably shy away from such thoughts. ‘How do you live with yourself if you believe such things?’ asks the unbeliever. All believers know the answer. It is that ‘I am a sinner’ is only part of the story.

• By the grace of God, I am a forgiven sinner. Jesus has redeemed me by his death on the cross. Every sin I have ever committed, every sin I ever will commit, it has all been washed away through his precious blood. Not one of all the thousands of sins I am guilty of or will be guilty of, stands against me. Every sin has been covered over, blotted out, destroyed. Every last vestige of sin has been nailed to the cross of Christ. It is buried in Christ’s tomb and no longer has any power to condemn me.
• By the grace of God I am not what I was or what I could be. I am a sinner. But I am not the sinner I once was or that I might have become. God has not only forgiven me, he has also changed me. I have been delivered both from the guilt and the power of sin. I am no longer under its dominion. I still sin but not as I once did. I no longer have to sin in the same way as before. I am not perfect yet, but I am free from the rule of sin. It no longer dominates my life as it once did.
• One day I will be a sinner no longer. Very soon the day will dawn and before it is over I will have sinned for the very last time. When I die, my life of sin will be over. I will awake in the glory of a new world, a sinless world. I will look on the face of Christ. And from that moment I will never sin again. I will no longer be a sinner. Though at present I cannot go a day without sin, then I will be absolutely perfect forever and forever. I will be entirely free from sin. I will be indeed as pure as the driven snow.

Can you say ‘I am a sinner’? Do you understand what you say? Do you mean what you say? Are you growing in your understanding of what you say? Do you mean more and more what you say? And do you know the way out from sin? Are you trusting in Christ for full forgiveness? Are you looking forward to that day when you will sin no more?
First published in Grace Magazine