Family Worship

Family worship seems to me from my limited experience to be one of the "great omissions" of modern Christianity. I as going to say "Western", but I don't see it here in Kenya either.

By "family worship", I mean a time, daily (as far as possible), when the whole family (which might just be the married couple if they have no children or they have left home) gathers together to worship God. It could be at any time of day, though after one of the meal-times is the most natural as the family is often together then already.

I think it is hard to argue that every family ought to have family worship:

• Are we meant only to worship God one day a week? Is that consistent with his worthiness, and his daily care for us?
  
• God created the family as a fundamental unit in creation (there being only two others - church and state) - is it meant to not have organised times to return worship to him?
  
• The book of Proverbs gives us an extended model of a father giving instruction to his son, in a comprehensive range of subjects. How can this happen without organised times?
• The Bible explicitly commands, in both Testaments, fathers to ensure that their children have a comprehensive Christian education that is woven into the fabric of family life (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Ephesians 6:4). Is this really meant to happen by accident, and without routine worship? Can we really expect our children to learn the teachings of the Bible just by osmosis? If temporal learning needs 5 or 6 days a week of organised activity (whether at home-school or an outside school), how can godliness only need one?
  
• The Old Testament festivals were family events (e.g. the Passover in Exodus 12); is it consistent with the greater glory of the New Covenant that New Covenant worship is meant to be solely for individuals and churches?
• The ten commandments are addressed to family contexts (e.g. in particular the 4th) - is there really meant to be no formal family religion?
• Can we really defend finding time for sport/TV/browsing the web or whatever your leisure/hobby is, but not for the worship of God?

"Worship" does necessarily mean a 90 minute formal service with 40 minute sermon, or whatever! It simply means reading the Scriptures, praying in praise, thanksgiving and request, and singing of psalms/hymns/spiritual songs. Incidentally, where there is family worship it seems to me that part of Biblical reformation of our family worship is to restore the element of singing (e.g. what is Psalm 127 for if it is not a family Psalm? Is it only meant to be sung outside the family?)

Where did family worship go? Historically, it used to be unquestioned and unquestionable amongst evangelical Christians of all stripes: there was simply no argument. Christians worship God, of course they do - and families are the most fundamental unit in society and hence a primary place where worship ought to be: of course they are! How could we lose such a fundamental part of our walk with God, and how can there be so little (to my knowledge) being said about it?

Have you ever heard a sermon, or read an article on the importance of family worship? Whence this silence? How to carry it out in practice of course is another topic - a practical matter that may need some guidance and help if it has never been done before. But carry it out, we must - if we want to see the kingdom of God advance, and not just a bare-bones Christianity limping and struggling on as it seems to do in much of the world today.

The band of theologians

This is a lovely quote from astrophysicist Robert Jastrow. He's talking about the fact that 20th century physics has been a tour of crushing defeat for materialist dreamers (which is why atheist apologists try to make you only think about biology and Darwinism (not that they have much excuse for this either), and keep mum about physics):

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, 1978, p. 116)

By "reason" he means the pseudo-reason of Dawkins et al - i.e., scientism. But I digress. This quote came to mind as I read from today's Daily Telegraph, this article in which the Science Correspondent reports that, well, an analysis of their behaviour shows that babies aren't innocent after all.

This hardly comes as news to anyone who has existed in the Judaeo-Christian stream since the fall of Adam. But, in hushed and awed tones, our correspondent reports:

Yet it now appears that babies learn to deceive from a far younger age than anyone previously suspected.

Excuse me - who is the "anyone" in this quote? It must exclude anyone who a) takes their Bible seriously or b) is a parent who observes their child's behaviour in any meaningful way....

Original sin, anyone? Is that really a doctrine which nobody ever suspected before? Has Mr. Gray just discounted several centuries of Western history, and the fundamental cultural values which our civilisation as built on? Something that nobody ever heard of before? Ho hum.

Or when he says "nobody" is he, perhaps, only including as real live people the people who can be described as "the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of [pseudo-]reason" ?

Hi there! Do come on up. You're a bit late, but welcome at last. Do enjoy the view before you fall off the other side!

Galatians 2 and the Jerusalem Council

I am presently teaching Galatians at Bible college. Galatians is a book of great significance in working out a Biblical, covenantal theology, and a theology of the true gospel and its place in church life.

It is also a very important letter for piecing together a chronology of the New Testament, and of the life of Paul. But that is not an easy task. There are lots of different data points which it is non-trivial to bring together. To give a simple example, in Galatians 2:1, Paul says "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem". Fourteen years later than what? Perhaps, fourteen years later than the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 1:18. Or, perhaps fourteen years later than his conversion, which he dated the Galatians 1:18 visit as being three years later than. I have in my lap at present a commentary which on page 44 states the latter, then on page 50 states the former without seeming to be aware of the self-contradiction!

One of the difficult questions is whether Galatians 2:1-10 is an account of the same "Jerusalem council" as in Acts 15. On the face of it, this seems quite likely:

• It is a meeting in Jerusalem,
• occasioned by a controversy over the role of the law of Moses in salvation,
• and in particular circumcision
  
• involving Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James,
• which gave a decisive verdict in favour of a circumcision-free, law-free gospel.
  

But in my opinion deeper reflection leads to the conclusion that it is not the same meeting:

• The Galatians 2 meeting appears to have been private and unofficial between a few apostles, whereas the Acts 15 one was fairly public and official involving many more leaders of the church.
  
• The Jerusalem council laid down some guidelines that Gentiles should not indulge in particular acts that would inflame Jewish sensitivities; whereas in Galatians Paul only reports an exhortation to help the poor - which the Jerusalem council's letter does not mention. (There are various other apparent dissimilarities which are arguments from silence and are therefore weak, but in this case we have the council's letter in totality, so this argument from silence is significant). Likewise, the Judaisers might have been expected to use the council's prohibitions against these inflammations of Jewish sensibilities, distorting them to make them into absolute laws for all Gentile Christians for all times - but Paul never tackles this argument, which suggests it was not being made.
  
• One border-line is-it-an-argument-from-silence difference: in Galatians Paul states that he went to Jerusalem because of a revelation, whereas in Acts 15 the church in Antioch determined after discussion to send him. (I could conceive that both could be true). But if Galatians 2 is in fact reporting events of Paul's Jerusalem visit in Acts 11:27-30, this fits in well: the trigger then was a revelation through the prophet Agabus, and that Acts visit was a visit in part for poor relief, which in Galatians 2:10 Paul reports as being a matter on his heart at that time.
  
• In Galatians, Paul makes no explicit mention of any official pronouncement on the question. This is again an argument from silence, but I'd assert a significant one. Why would he only speak of private agreement, when after the Jerusalem council an official letter was written that should have settled the matter once and for all? Such an argument would be weighty and powerful - final, indeed. If the Jerusalem council had taken place by the time Paul wrote Galatians, it is strange that he speaks of it only in such a guarded, round-about way when its verdict was so helpful to his case. The Judaisers were clearly saying "the Jerusalem apostles agree with us, not Paul" - why would Paul fail to appeal to their public pronouncement to the contrary, and only testify of a private agreement?

My conclusion: The meeting reported in Galatians 2 is a separate meeting which pre-dates the Jerusalem council.

Were they really that dim?

I'm presently teaching through John's gospel at Bible college. Two well known characters in the early chapters are Nicodemus, the Pharisee who comes to Jesus at night (chapter 3), and the woman of Samaria (chapter 4). Both of them has a personal meeting with Jesus - Nicodemus comes at night, and the woman meets him at Jacob's well.

Jesus engages each in conversation, and very early on, to each he makes a startling statement (perhaps something for us to try more often?):

To Nicodemus: "I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

To the Samaritan woman: "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

Each then gives Jesus a correspondingly startled answer:

Nicodemus: "How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

The Samaritan woman: "Sir, you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?"

I have read and heard many modern sermons and commentaries on these two meetings. I cannot recall the exceptions to the below rule. Almost always, the preacher/commentator remarks that Nicodemus/the Samaritan woman completely misunderstood Jesus, and understood him in a crude and literal sense. Nicodemus thought Jesus meant he needed to come through the birth canal again! The woman though Jesus was talking about getting some really special water out of the ground somehow! What amusing misunderstandings! Thankfully, Jesus then goes on to explain that he meant it in a spiritual sense.

I want to question whether Nicodemus, a highly educated teacher of the law or the Samaritan woman, who shows a lot of familiarity about the religious controversies between the Jews and the Samaritans, were really that dim. I do not think their answers actually mean, "Really? You mean that literally?" Modern Western thought seems to be fairly impoverished when it comes to thinking in non-literal, symbolic terms, and this misunderstanding I think is one that we are all too ready to make. But I really doubt that ancient Jews were quite so quick.

I'd like to think this is a modern Western disease, but as I check Calvin on John I see that he also assumes, without question, that Nicodemus intended his objection literalistically. In the case of the woman though he says, "She understands quite well that Christ is speaking figuratively." Matthew Henry, on the other hand, takes both literally.

I am suggesting that in both cases, Nicodemus and the woman each well understood that Christ did not mean to be understood literally. They did not understand his teaching at all, of course, but this does not mean they misunderstood it. I propose that their responses are simply ways in which intelligent people say, "I do not understand this at all.... please tease it out for me." They state words which on the face of it seem hopeless misconstructions, but that it a common way of getting the conversation partner to spell out exactly what he does mean. They are not positively asserting the misconstructions; they are confessing their ignorance.

I could be wrong of course; I'm not be dogmatic about it. But I think in interpreting these passages we need to credit these people with more intelligence in following the thread of their conversations with Jesus. They were spiritually ignorant; but that does not mean that they were thick as well.

Similarly, I'd like to question whether in 4:19-20, the woman is really trying to divert Jesus with a question about the right place of worship, in order to divert the conversation away from her sin of adultery. I have not checked so much on this one, but this seems to be the common evangelical interpretation. I think rather than "Sir, I can see that you are a prophet" is an admission that Jesus' exposure of her adultery is true, and that she is not trying to hide from it. Her question about the true place of worship is rather the question of a seeking soul, who wants to be away from her sin and to worship God in truth - it is a genuine question, not a smokescreen. It was a controversial matter and with a newly stirred up desire to worship God, she was looking for the answer. But that's another argument!

Going off the rails...

We probably all know Christians who once seemed to be really going great, but today are spiritual shipwrecks. The shipwreck might have happened with some enormous, spectacular sin that had been hidden but now comes to light; or it might have been a slow, drip, drip, drip ruin.

But, unless the Christian was a total hypocrite from day one, the enormous and spectacular sins have normally come about in a drip-drip-drip way. Satan does not have to totally ruin us today. He knows that sudden, open and horrid displays of his malice often have the effect of driving Christians closer to Christ.

Satan is not impatient as we are. He has a lot of cunning, and a lot of experience. He knows that he can often ruin a man by degrees. He does not have to encourage you to head straight to the rocks today. If you lose 0.1% of your spiritual vitality today and repeat day after day, then in under 3 years you've lost the lot. Or, lose 0.01% today, and it only takes 27 years. Satan can afford that. Some unmortified sin which you do not mortify today, or tomorrow - and carry on like that - and it might take decades, but it will ruin you in the end.

There's only one way to be safe - make sure you repent of all known sin (and pray to be shown the ones you don't know about), and feed on Christ for spiritual growth, today. If you think this advice is too sensational, then it looks like Satan has already made huge head-way with you.

Miscellaneous news: The last two weeks I've managed to upload the Sunday morning sermon from Eldoret to our church website. Hopefully I will keep this up each week. There is a feed link there for those of you who'd be interested in being informed each time.

Human depravity

In fact it wasn't the ordinary day at the office finishing me off last week - it was "atypical pneumonia"! Thankfully the antibiotics seem to be doing exactly what they're meant to; four doses so far and I feel so much better.

This weekend, God-willing, I'll be preaching on Mark 7:1-23. This is the passage in which Jesus exposes the great difference between Pharisaical religion and true religion. Defilement does not come from outside - what you can touch or eat - it comes fundamentally from within, inside the heart.

Why is there so much wickedness in the world, and why is it so widespread? Because there are fallen people in the world, and they carry within them the root of every possible evil. Where do the horrors we can read of in the daily papers come from? From your and my wrong desires, placed in the situation and with the opportunity to express themselves.

Yesterday I read of a 17-year old, well liked and respected high school student who..... hired the school drug dealer for $1,000 to kill his mother. Which the school drug dealer did, stabbing her over 40 times after the door was left open to let him in. The reason was because she insisted he do his chores and observe the curfews she imposed. Tellingly, there were lots of comments on the website from his friends, who could not bring themselves to believe it. "I really feel there's something not quite right here" was the kind of comment - he was such a nice guy, surely nice people can't have this kind of thing in them.... and yet they really can, and do.

Christianity can afford to be uniquely frank about the real corruption of humanity, because it actually has the solution for it. Man-made religions, with all their rules which are supposed to make us righteous in God's sight, have to deny the truth. The fall of man, total depravity, the captivity (not freedom) of the human will to sin - all these things the philosophers and religionists of this world hate and try to scoff at. And yet the realities of the daily paper and our own inner struggles with appalling evils remain: stubborn facts that won't go away.

And yet they do go away, where the power of Christ's death is known and received. Christianity has the radical solution that the Son of God took the whole penalty of our wrong upon himself and paid off the whole lot. It says that he rose from the dead, and sends God the Holy Spirit to purge and make new creations out of those whom he saves. He comes himself by his Spirit to live in them, and little by little that corruption can be put to death. It is a solution every bit as radical as the problem. Man is immensely wicked to the very core - yet Jesus died for people who are immensely wicked to the very core.

You won't find this teaching of human depravity in man-made, Pharisaical religion - because such religion has no solution for it. Human "good works" cannot make up for such an enormous deficit. But the fact that such depravity is very real is in itself a great evidence that Christianity is true - because it can look the reality in the face, admit it all, and then say "and here is the answer".

Dawkins satire

Richard Dawkins is apparently visiting the New Zealand International Festival of the Arts.

Dawkins' mono-dimensional scientism makes him about as appropriate a figure in the world of the arts as Attila the Hun would be at a conference on good manners. But I digress. In my e-mail inbox comes a recommendation for this:

In anticipation of the visit of Richard Dawkins to the NZ International Festival of the Arts…
 
See a quality, locally produced satire/parody, 10 minute in depth “interview”, with “Richard Dawkins”…
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2RMU9_7jSY