Refusing to let the world corrupt you (part two)

Last year I blogged some thoughts on James 1:27:

Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

For while I have had some problems with this verse. The first part seems to be about engagement with the world, by ensuring that the most vulnerable in society are cared for. But the second part seems to imply that real religion is about separation from the world, in order to keep holy.

But the verse opened up for me new possibilities when I read it in context with the first part of chapter 2. Our Bibles come in artificial chapters and verses created to make the books easier to read, but sometime the context of verses like this become lost as we quote them, and it is a nice tidy quotable verse. I believe that the example James goes on to give the church in Chapter 2:1-4 is what he means by corruption. I am sure that James was not just telling story he had made up, but one he had heard of or witnessed, where the rich were being given privileged seating and priority over the poor. The world has an order that often places rich and important or famous at the top and the poor and ordinary people at the bottom. But James says the Kingdom of God is different - in that Kingdom the poor have been made rich (James 2:5).

Daniel 1:8 is a verse that could be read in the same way - Daniel resolved to be different - but Daniel was very much engaged in the world around him, he became one of the three chief Satraps and was all set to become the most important one in the country, before events turned against him (Daniel 6). His resolution to be different did not take him away from the world but into it.

So we must follow that example. Rather than being corrupted by the world, the church needs to be a corrupters of the world, and what should that corruption look like, we need to look no further than Matthew 5:3-12. Some churches remain oblivious to culture, some good at reading and responding, but for me the church should not be the place we are ambivalent to or followers of culture but instead leaders of culture.

I would love to hear comments on how we can be cultural leaders rather than cultural followers/ignores?

The only institution that exists for its non-members

Dietrich Bonhoeffer has often been misquoted, what he actually said is this:-

the church is the church only when it exists for others. To make a start, it should give away all its property to those in need

The fact is that most charities exist for those outside the charity (that is part of the legal status of a charity). We can misquote Bonhoeffer, and it makes us feel good, but the correct quote really challenges us.

What Bonhoeffer actually says questions the identity of the church, who the church exists for and why. According to Bonhoeffer the church can only call itself the church if its focus is outward and not inward.

He then goes on to qualify this with a statement that will make most churches uncomfortable, to give away "all" to those in need. Wow, is this really what the church needs to do to be the church. If it is then there are not a lot of real churches out there.

You might say that that is madness, if the church did that, where would they meet, how would they offer the services they offer, how could they run kids work, offer breakfasts to homeless people etc. What does he mean by "giving away" does he mean literal, or does he mean that the buildings need to be more accessible to those around - "giving away" in a less literal sense.

Finally, if you give everything away, what will happen to those in need around the next corner. What if they use it badly, or misuse it. It is a very complicated issue. However, one thing we always need to have in the back of our minds is - what place does faith in all of this. When do we need to stop trusting in a building and the resources we have and start trusting in the Jehovah Jireh who can provide more than we ever need or require?

I have recently heard a story of what this looks like in reality, it is of a large church helping a small church out, to enable them to house a minister. The smaller church does not have a manse or the money to buy one, so the other church has just given them a substantial amount of money, which will enable a manse to be purchased and a minister to be housed. It was money they could have used themselves, but it is money that will make that ministry possible. From what I see this is fairly unusual in Baptist circles, but it is an example of one church looking outward, being who it is truly called to be, giving away rather than keeping hold. I have no doubt that God will use that for the glory of both churches.

Prayer for Revival

Today a Christian couple lost their case for refusing to allow a Gay couple to stay at their hotel in a room with a double bed (it should be noted that they refused all un-married couples so this is not just a homophobia issue). After the case a member of the Christian Institute argued that this was a legal bias for sexual freedom over religious freedom. There was also story of a Town council that is no longer allowed to pray before  their meetings anymore. I am not going to delve too deep into my thoughts into either issue, but for many Christians it creates the atmosphere that this country is gradually losing its Christian tag (one I am not wholly convinced it deserved). What we need to rectify this is revival!

I was chatting before church on Sunday and this topic came up, that what was required was a revival, and there was discussion around historic revivals, and the prayer that lead up to them. When the revival started in Wales, at the turn of the last century, its effect was quickly felt in Bristol, and my area of Bedminster was directly impacted. So there is a huge amount of good that comes from revivals. But I wonder will we see something like those great revivals happen again, is our society just too different, too cynical? Now, don't get me wrong I believe the Spirit of God can do amazing things, however, God gave his people free will, and no matter how much you pray for someone, it is ultimately their choice whether they respond to the call of the Spirit.

A few years back, I remember my church had a great big push on praying for revival. Every lunch time I would sit on a park bench on the green near the church and pray for an hour. Needless to say prayer quickly stopped as a revival did not actually break out. My question though do we replace mission with prayer, so that we can see the Spirit move, and mean that we do not have to. Should we spend less time on our knees praying for a move of the Spirit, and more time exercising the fruits of the Spirit among our communities?

Finally, why do we want a move of the Spirit in revival, is it so that the church can re-take its position at the centre of society? In Stuart Murray Williams book on Post-Christendom he argues that we should "stop praying for revival" because

We anticipate survival not revival. We are not expecting restoration of former glories, the renewal of Christendom or rapid painless transition to a new are of triumphant progress.

If the Spirit chooses to move in power again, I will not be against it. To see people healed, lives changed, communities restored and God proclaimed as rightful King is something I would love to see. But I am wondering why we want it, and how much time we could easily concentrate on praying for it when we could be seeing the Spirit move in new ways (but maybe smaller) amongst our communities?

Agape

This is my preach from Sunday, I really enjoyed giving it, hope it blesses you also:

Devonport baptist.co.uk podcast

a pair of doves or two young pigeons

Yesterday the Government re-committed themselves to a benefit cap of £26k, and reversed the amendments made in the House of Lords, this was the legislation that the Bishops were so criticised for voting with their Bibles rather than anything else. It is funny that only a few months ago David Cameron was calling for a stronger church prepared to stand up for its values. This was applauded by the right wing press, until the values of the Bible disagree with their narrow minded attitudes to the world. The Bishops looked at the Bible and saw that it said we should favour the poor over the rich, and quite rightly could not agree with legislation.

Now don’t get me wrong, I fully agree that a family brought up on benefits is far from ideal, but if there are no jobs available, what can a family do. Keep in mind that unemployment has grown steadily over the last few years, so it is not as if there are jobs a plenty, simply put to place a cap is morally wrong as it takes not account of the situation a family might be in, and it is not just the Anglican church who have a problem with this legislation.

My major problem is that the Government seems obsessed that the solution to our financial problems with benefit claimants at the bottom end of society, and when you think that benefit fraud accounts for £4 billion a year, you can understand to some degree. But when you consider that tax evasion accounts for £35 billion, then you start to wonder why there is no legislation to tighten up the loop holes.

Although some bankers, after much pressure, have now declined their bonuses, there are still those who are taking massive share option bonuses (just not in public owned banks). Meanwhile the Conservatives are obsessed with removal of the 50% tax to stimulate growth, will it really do that, or will it just keep their greedy rich backers happy? Bearing in mind you have to earn over £150k a year before you hit that threshold, and you will only get taxed at 50% above those earnings, bearing in mind that the Government considers £26K enough for a family to live on, do they really need the extra £124k?

If the Government really wants a return to Christian values, which I would argue is not really a return, as they never really existed, then I would suggest they read their Bible, read Luke 2:21-40 (it is after all the day we celebrate Jesus being presented in the Temple) read how the family of God could not afford to sacrifice a lamb, so had to go with the smallest offering they could give, two doves or two young pigeons, read that and consider what Christianity really means, and if they want a return to Christian values they should maintain the 50% tax, close tax loop holes (tax evasion or as we could call it - fraud) and agree to a Robin Hood Tax.

James 5:1-6

^1-3 And a final word to you arrogant rich: Take some lessons in lament. You'll need buckets for the tears when the crash comes upon you. Your money is corrupt and your fine clothes stink. Your greedy luxuries are a cancer in your gut, destroying your life from within. You thought you were piling up wealth. What you've piled up is judgement.  ^4-6All the workers you've exploited and cheated cry out for judgement. The groans of the workers you used and abused are a roar in the ears of the Master Avenger. You've looted the earth and lived it up. But all you'll have to show for it is a fatter than usual corpse. In fact, what you've done is condemn and murder perfectly good persons, who stand there and take it.