Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Monday 30 March 2015

A Glimpse of Heaven

The other week I had the opportunity of preaching from the book of Revelation, the last in the current morning series at LBC based on the Community Bible Experience readings.   I chose as my text Chapter 5.  I couldn't wait to get into the study to start work; sleeves rolled up, brow furrowed.

I recalled, as I have done on a few occasions, how Revd Glen Marshall's preaching on Revelation at the Baptist Assembly in 2002 had knocked me off my feet.  He had presented Christ to me in such a vivid and compelling way it was etched in my mind.  In particular I had been gripped by his introduction to the book itself and, amazingly, I managed to find his notes on this introduction online. As I read his opening remarks about how we should approach this particular book I was again transfixed by the very nature of the text God had given to us in John's Apocalypse.

I read this introduction at the beginning of my sermon as I could find no better way of being able to capture people's hearts and imaginations for the message that would follow from Rev. 5   I've pasted in Glen's notes below and also the link to the sermon itself.   I have to say I was blown away by it. That's sounds kind of inappropriate doesn't it but I'm not referring to my own preaching but what the experience of announcing this particular section of God's Word to the congregation (including myself!) did to me.   It was a rare thing I can say.   Heralding the truth that despite all manner of horrendous circumstances "the lamb still wins" was an incredible privilege.  

An Introduction to Revelation by Glen Marshall
Revelation is a virtuoso performance.  John is the Salvador Dali of the prophetic image, the Lewis Carol of biblical literature and the Tim Burton of scriptural story telling.
He breaks all the rules - the Greek is a nightmare, he is radically creative with the conventions of apocalyptic and daringly innovative with the prophetic tradition.
Why? Because what he is dealing with, what he has seen, what he has been charged to share is so huge, so profound, so fundamental, so gob-smacking that he has to find a way to assail our senses and our sensibilities in the hope that we might see it too - and be changed as a result.
It’s worth remembering that Revelation was designed to be read out loud in church (“Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it …1:3).   It’s a spoken drama - imagine it - in Ephesus, eyes closed, transported to another world - not an imaginary world but a heavenly world, not a dream world but our world viewed from the perspective of the eternal purposes of the creator redeemer God. It is designed to break open our world to transcendence. 
John wants us to see what he’s seen so that the vision will invade our hearts, infect our dreams and so transform our living. 
That’s why the last thing that you must do to Revelation is turn into a doctrinal textbook or still less a futurist timetable like some eschatological equivalent of the national rail enquiry service. 
John did not use his images to conceal what could have been said more straightforwardly, but to communicate that which could not be expressed in any other way.
This is a Pink Floyd Video not a government information film. This is Moulin Rouge, not a documentary on the Parisian entertainment industry.
We evangelicals need to repent of the violence we have done to scripture – Like some insane cook we have spent our time extracting the individual ingredients from the stew in order to analyse their taste; we’ve been so busy dissecting the body of scripture in order to extract precise and consistent doctrinal formulations that we’ve been left with a corpse, not a living word.

So let’s get on and see what he saw - and don’t just bring your reason with you bring your imagination as well.

Monday 2 March 2015

Flowers for Gay Weddings

I'm always interested in what James Emery White has to say about church and culture.   This post addresses an issue that we will find more and more in the UK and it's worth giving some thought to.   It reminds me of DA Carson's book "The Intolerance of Tolerance" in which he says that it's no longer enough to permit and accept things you don't agree with, you have to support them and be in favour of them if you're to be tolerant.  

By now, most have heard of the many and varied court cases related to conscientious objection, usually of a religious nature, to serving gay weddings. They are filling the courts as bakers and florists, bed and breakfast operators and caterers, are being sued for not wanting to engage in activity they deem supporting the wedding itself.

But now we are starting to get the decisions.
A judge ruled that a Washington state florist who refused to provide a flower arrangement for a gay wedding "because of [her] relationship with Jesus" violated the state's anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws.
Background: the couple asked the florist to provide flowers for their wedding in March 2013, three months after Washington state legalized same-sex marriage. The florist had served the couple at least twenty-times before, and knew they were gay. But when the request came to provide flower arrangements for their wedding, she said that she could not provide the arrangements because doing so would have constituted a demonstration of approval for the wedding itself.
"I just put my hands on his and told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ I couldn't do that, couldn't do his wedding."
The charge against the florist was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The State Attorney, who brought one of two lawsuits against the florist (the other came from the ACLU), said "If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service."
But the legal team for the florist said she hadn't denied the couple flowers, just the arrangements. An arrangement, it was argued, was a form of free speech. They were welcome to her flowers. Further, they argued the florist's faith should exempt her from anti-discrimination laws.
In a sixty-page opinion, the judge maintained that "religious motivation does not excuse compliance with the law…In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the courts have confirmed the power of the legislative branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious beliefs."
More specifically, the judge maintained that while religious beliefs are protected, religious actions are not. When the state of Washington approved gay marriage, a Christian refusing to serve gay weddings became illegal.
The florist's attorney, Kristen Waggoner with Alliance Defending Freedom, said of the pending appeal: "The ruling basically said that if you dare to not celebrate same-sex marriage because it violates your religious convictions, that the government has a right to bring about your personal and professional ruin…Her home, her business…her life savings and retirement, these are all in jeopardy…all because of her deeply held religious views."
Many Christians are conflicted about such stories, not to mention verdicts. No one wants to see true discrimination take place.
But there is a significant difference between serving a wedding and, say, serving a meal. Many in opposition to the florist's stand want to link it to the civil rights movement and the abhorrent Jim Crow laws that were in effect until the mid 1960's.
However, the analogy is specious on several fronts, but most importantly because a wedding has always been a deeply religious event. Among many Christians, it is one of the holy sacraments. It is not about a general refusal of service on the basis of race, gender or even sexual orientation. It is about forced compliance in regard to what has historically been, and continues to be for most, a sacred act being treated in a sacrilegious way, and people being forced into participating in that sacrilege.
She would sell them flowers. She just didn't want to create something that would be used for the wedding itself. She didn't try to stop the wedding, or refuse them flowers for their wedding…she just didn't want to be aparticipant. They could use the flowers for whatever they wanted, but that was their concern. She didn't want to have to create something expressly used to, in her heart and mind, dishonor God.
Think of it this way: suppose she had been asked to make a floral arrangement for a Hindu wedding, a floral arrangement that was destined to be given as a sacrifice to a particular Hindu god. To make such an arrangement would be, for a Christian, unthinkable. It would be making something for a purpose that they simply could not bring their hands to craft. And for some reason, I think the court of public opinion would be with her.
To say that belief cannot be linked with action is to say that religion is fine as long as it isn't real. As long as it doesn't result in an actual lifestyle of conviction. It should be treated as a personal, private preference, but not a transcendent reality. As such, it must compromise itself to anything society deems desirable.
Let's not be naïve about the not-so-subtle agenda that seems to be creeping into the cultural discourse on such matters. For many, it is not enough for homosexuality to be allowed; it is not enough for it be accepted; it is not enough for gay marriage to be legal. The end game for some seems to be the penalization, if not criminalization, of any and all convictional opposition.
To my thinking, this is the heart of the "religious freedom" concern.
And this is the heart of the matter for the florist as well, for after being offered a settlement in this case she responded by saying:
"Your offer reveals that you don't really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It's about freedom, not money. I certainly don't relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important."
So when the argument goes, "Yes, of course I believe in religious freedom. But if you're going to be a photographer, you will have to subvert that to your role in society as a photographer. After all, you don't have to be a photographer!"
...or,
"Of course clergy and churches should not be forced to officiate gay weddings. But if they don't, they should lose their tax exempt status,"
...let's call it what it is. This is the active penalization of religious conviction, and the polar opposite of religious freedom.
Of course the photographer has to be a photographer. It is their vocation, their livelihood, the fruit of their training and education. If you want discrimination, here it is: you are saying you can't be a Christianphotographer, at least not a practicing one.
So there you have it.
A judge has ruled that a "relationship with Jesus" doesn't justify acts of conscience. The only problem is that a relationship with Jesus demands just that.
James Emery White