Family Worship
Andy Beard
Luke 5:1-11 Family Worship Ideas

Meditation before the Manger (ii)

Mary

Suggested Reading: I Peter 1:10-21

Suggested Carol: The Angel Gabriel from heaven came

Almighty and most merciful God,

who has taught us to love our neighbour as ourselves;

we remember before you this night

…all who are burdened and oppressed;

…those who are afflicted by poverty;

…those worn down by disease and illness;

…the weary and the heavy-laden;

…those oppressed by darkness and despair;

…those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.

Help them to rest in you this night.

through Jesus Christ our Lord

Amen

William Knight, Parish Prayers 1215

Meditation before the Manger (i)

Welcome to the Nativity for grown ups…

Suggested Reading: I Peter 1:3-9

Suggested Video: O Come, O Come Emmanuel

Eternal God, Heavenly Father

who through your Son has revealed to us that heaven and earth will pass away

We ask that you would keep us steadfast in your Word, and in true faith;

…that you would graciously guard us from all sin

…and that you would preserve us amidst all temptations;

so that our hearts may not be overwhelmed by the cares of this life,

but rather be watchful and prayerful as we await the coming of your Son,

and joyfully anticipate our salvation,

through that same Jesus Christ,

Amen.

Parish Prayers 27, United Lutheran Church

Civil Disobedience is in an Anglican's blood...

We tend to think that as an established Church, the Church of England should probably think of itself as part of the, well, the establishment. As such we might imagine benign insitutional compliance. In fact, at its best, the Church of England has been prophetic and remarkably willing to disregard dictats from the ruler of the realm. This is particualrly interesting in the light of Article 37, which recognises that the sovereign has ‘chief power in the realm of England’, and that as such ‘holds supreme government in this realm’. Crucially the Article goes on to state: ‘…we do not grant our rulers the ministry of either God’s Word or of the sacraments … By this title we acknowledge only the prerogative which we see in Holy Scripture God has given to all godly rulers’. Note the description of the kind of ruler that the Church delights to be subject to.

As in so much of the Church of England’s foundational documents, there is a commitment to stand firmly within the limits of Scripture. The transition from studying the text of the Bible directly (which we’ve been doing up to this point in the series) and reflecting on the Church’s practise and example, should feel seamless. Art.37 also goes on to explain that Christians are subject to the laws of the realm, and to the penalties incurred in the breaking of those laws.

Unfortunately the working out in practise has been a much more ambiguous affair. It’s worth being honest about that up front. The Church of England has consistently struggled to remain faithful to her spiritual heritage and ambition. And it hasn’t always ended well for those who have sought to stand against rulers. We may not always agree with the stands that were taken, or the politics of those taking them, but what they all have in common is a vision of a Church that has a right, indeed a Divine mandate, to stand against the civil and religious authorities when they step away from their responsibilities before heaven.

Again, the context is one of recognising the Church’s obligation to pray for and to support God’s appointed governements wherever possible. Intercessions for the sovereign and his / her parliament were offered in services of Divine worship by every Anglican minister. As well as collects, the old BCP intercessions during Communion put it like this: ‘We pray that touwoud save and defend all Christian rulers, and especially your serrvant Elizabeth our Queen, so that under her we may be governed in godliness and peace. Grant that all who exercise authority may truly and impartially administer justice, restrain wickedness and vice, and maintain you true religion and virtue’.

But those Anglicans who have felt the responsiblities of their ministry most acutely have always understood that they answered first to the Living God. And that has frequently lead to a tension in the relationship between the Government and the Church.

You might have in mind Henry II famously wanting rid of that ‘turbulent priest’ Beckett in 12th Century. Beckett was Archbishop of Canterbury at the time (so pre-Reformation), and despite having been appointed by Henry, decried the king’s habit of meddling in Church affairs. He was exiled for 6 years, but on his return immediately launched again into his harsh criticisms of what he saw as the over-reach of the those with temporal authority. Henry’s exasperation found expression in a moment of particular (probably rhetorical) frustration: ‘Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?’ Four knights took him at his word and on 29 December 1170, murdered Becket at the altar of Canterbury Cathedral. They were excommunicated were excommunicated for their initiative, and in 1174 Henry walked barefoot to Canterbury Cathedral in penance. Henry’s plans to curb the power of the Church ended in failure.

Or perhaps - more controversially - we could think of the role of Anglican clergy in the events around England’s brief experience of republicanism. Church ministers were on both side of the political divide, some supporting Charles I, and some agitating on behalf of Parliament. One of the most politically active ministers was John Owen, who is heralded as possibly the most brilliant English speaking theologian the Church has known. His political legacy is more ambiguous. He preached to Parliament on the day after the execution of Charles I, and hoped for the reformation of church and society in the transformation of politics under Cromwell. He was quickly disillusioned, and in the late 1650’s found himself involved in a conspiracy to destabilise the republic. It failed, and instead created the crisis that led to the restoration of the monarchy, and the persecution of dissenters (such as Owen himself).

We’re likely to find the example of Tyndale more clear-cut. We’re in the 1520-30’s now, and the Reformation is getting underway. But in England it is still illegal to translate the Bible into, or even read the Bible in English, without episcopal permission. Indeed it is illegal to have any part of the Scriptures in the English language. Tyndale challenged the King (Henry VIII) over the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragorn, and then sought refuge in Belgium. For this, and for his defying the order of the Bishop of London by translating the Bible into English, he was hunted down by member of Henry’s equivalent to MI6, arrested and imprisoned near Brussels. In 1536, he was convicted of heresy and executed by strangulation, after which his body was burnt at the stake. His dying prayer was that the King of England's eyes would be opened; this seemed to find its fulfilment just one year later with Henry's authorisation of the ‘Matthew Bible’, which was largely Tyndale's own work. A copy of the Bible in English would be provided in every parish Church - though it would have to be chained to prevent people stealing it!

The list of Anglicans who have felt duty bound over the years to defy the law of the land is fairly long. We could re-visit the stories of the Bishops who insisted on teaching the Bible during the reign of Mary I, and who were variously imprisoned, exiled, or burned at the stake; or closer to home, the stories of the Ipswich Martyrs. We could remember Wycliffe, or the Lollards, or those ejected in 1662 after they refused to sign the Act of Uniformity, or the subversive ministries of Whitefield and Wesley, which defied again both the law of the land and the Church. Or in more recent years Bishop George Bell’s propensity to run into members of the German Confessing Church during his trips abroad. Bell’s advocating the cause of the Confessing Church, and the conspiracy against Hitler in which several members of the Confessing Church were involved, did not sit well with Churchill who was deeply sceptical that any such Church or plot existed.

But whatever we may think of any individual circumstance, the point remains that a willingness to engage in civil and ecclesastical disobedience has consistently been a feature of Anglicanism. When Governments, or Bishops create a sitaution where those who understand their first allegiance to be to Christ face pressure to compromise their commitment to Him, Anglicans have willingly stepped out in disobedience - and have often faced the consequences (Art.37). In recent years it is easy to think that, in terms of civil disobedience (ecclesiasitcal disobedience has been another story), there has been little need for such action. That is a situation that is perhpas changing faster than we realise.

As we begin to re-consider these questions of discipleship, it is worth us being aware of our history. Whilst for many of us, questions of conscientious objection (in society, in Church or in the workplace) are largely unprecedented, there is a long and strong tradition within Anglicanism. It is, as they say, in our blood.

Bible Read Through: Revelation (pt 1)

Here is the first half of this morning’s overview of the Book of Revelation. Hope it’s helpful. I mentioned about listening to the sermon series I preached through Revelation back in 2016. I checked on it earlier - don’t be put off by the timings!! It looks like some ofthe sermons are about an hour and forty minutes - i assure you that isn’t the case! They are big old sermons - but not that big!

The Limits of Revolution (viii) Revelation

The Book of Revelation explores the matrix of relationships between Christ, the Church and the world throughout the age between the Ascension of Christ and His return. It deals with immense reality, and its comprehensive and consuming insight can be amongst the most traumatic reading in the Bible.

The Apocalypse as it used to be called (‘apocalypse’, means ‘reveal / disclose’; it does not mean ‘the end of the world’!) paints a vision of a world that has descended into an arena of war. The ancient serpent, the dragon, rages against the Living God and is hurled to the earth. Unable to assail the throne of the Lamb, He instead ‘leads the whole world astray’ (12:9), into a posture of sustained hostility to Christ and His people. The world, as A.W.Tozer so memorably put it, is a battleground, not a playground.

The brutal reality of that battle is underscored early on in the Book. As we read through Jesus’ 7 letters to the (angels of the) Churches, we are introduced to the strategies and tactics of our enemy. Amongst them is the weaponisation of the structures of authority within human society. In His letters we find both religious and civil authority bearing against the people of God, with terrifying consequences. In tune with the purpose of the Book, Jesus unveils the spiritual animosity that lies behind those structures. ‘…[T]he devil will put some of you in prison to test you and you will suffer persecution…’ (3:10). It’s likely something we had already understood, but it’s worth noting that even structures of authority that have been put in place by the Living God can and do fall under ‘the control of the evil one’ (I Jn.5:19), and when they do they can become weapons of war.

We see this most fully and fearfully portrayed in Chapter 13, and the vision of the beasts that crawl out of the sea, and come out of the earth. We’ll look on Saturday (in the Bible Read Through breakfast) how to go about interpreting the imagery of the book of Revelation, but for the sake of brevity in this series, let us grant that this beast from the sea represent to us the brutal realities of a totalitarian (or at least, authoritarian) government. It is worth stressing - as we have done repeatedly in this series - that there is nothing wrong, per se, with political government. But when a structure of political and civil authority over-reaches its God-given mandate and demands a loyalty and final allegiance that belongs only to the Living God, then it becomes something that is represented by this beast in Rev.13. It doesn’t matter what ideology that political system embodies. It could be facist, communist, a theocracy or a liberal democracy. But when it seeks to politicise every aspect of life and being, it becomes a blasphemous phenomenon.

Similarly the beast that comes out of the earth. Again we see a human power structure, but this time with a spiritual / religious focus, rather than political (both these interpretations are explored in my series on Revelation on the website). Christless philosophies, false religions, godless spiritualities, all find themselves expressed in this monstrosity. The interconnectedness between politics and religion is worth being aware of in the chapter. Through this part of the Book of Revelation Jesus is teaching us to recognise that Satan is at work in the midst of all such conspiracies to marginalise and destroy the Church (Rev.1:1; 13:1). The genesis of both beasts is found in the presence of the ‘dragon’.

And so it is little surprise when we read that Christians will be imprisioned and indeed martyred under such a regime (13:10&15). Christians are particularly vulnerable as a state or religious culture becomes totalitarian. We cannot give our final allegiance to any authority, no matter how precious our national, cultural or even religious heritage. We would rightly understand such a claim to be idolatrous. As we have seen, we give to Caesar what is Caesar’s until to do so means we could not also give to God what is God’s. In the wake of such denial we see Christians suffering social marginalisation and economic privation (13:15-17).

The picture that comes through is of Satan as a bully who seeks to force the Church to conform to his vision of human society, spirituality and culture. He intimidates, deceives, and forces people to walk his way. Fear of the consequences of dissidence leads to conformity and capitulation. And he is remarkably effective. In ways that deliberately parody the heavenly vision of Rev.7:9, we are told that the dragon’s beast is given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. More disturbingly, it is given ‘power to wage war against God’s holy people, and to conquer them’ (13:7).

The call to the Church in the midst of all this is for patient endurance, faithfulness and wisdom (13:10&18). Jesus doesn’t suggest that there is nothing to worry about; He doesn’t intimate that the dragon’s bark is worse than his bite. There is a bite. There are consequences for a refusal to worship the beast (13:4). But Jesus expects us to remain faithful to Him and to bear those consequences patiently and humbly, confident that our names are written in the Book of Life and that as such we will be vindicated (13:8); confident that those authorities will be judged on the basis of how they have treated the Church (18:20); and confident that the death of the saints is not outside of the sovereignty of our God, and will be avenged (6:9-11; 19:1-3)

So, what do we take away from this? That the strucutres of religious and political authority are not spirtually neutral realities within human society and culture. That they can be inhabited by and weaponised by the spiritual forces that are deeply hostile to Christ and the Church. That to be faithful to Christ will at times demand that we do not conform to the way of life and being that the dragon would seek to impose. That such defiance will not be tolerated, and will lead to very tangible consequences for Christians that will have to be endured in a posture of patient hope for the Day of Judgement.

Many of our spiritual forbears have discovered that in laying our these dynamics, the Scriptures have lef tus with a profoundly accurate diagnosis. How did they navigate those dynamics? That is the question we will seek to answer in the second half of this series.

Limits of Revolution (vii) Acts

I’ll do two more posts on Biblical examples of the Church’s relationship to civil and religious authorities: this one on Acts, and one on the Book of Revelation.

So, Acts… It is worth starting by recognising the extent to which the Church in Acts complies with the statutes and decrees of the Roman Empire. Indeed, as we saw the other day in our Bible Read Through Breakfast on Acts, one of the points of Luke writing it might have been precisely to show that Roman authorities consistently have no complaint against followers of the Way. Paul knows and uses is legal ‘rights’; is willing to use his legal status as a Roman Citizen when it will benefit the Church; and he is consistently compliant with legal processes, even when this is the cause of significant inconvenience, suffering and the unjust loss of freedom (see e.g. Acts 16:22-24; 25:10-12; also I ICor.11:23-25). He sees the State as entitled to enact punishment. All this we would expect from the man who penned Rom.13:1-7. He is conversant with local legal customs and formal precedents which he regualrly takes advantage of in the cause of the Gospel (e.g. Acts 17:22f.). Further, his claim is that he has enver violated Jewish Law, properly understood. At one point he inadvertently ‘insults’ the High Priest; which illicites immediate repentance (Acts 23:3-5).

And yet it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Paul’s relationship with the legal structures is profoundly subversive. He is an apostle of the Kingdom of God, and as such knows both (at one level) his indispensibility, but also that the movement of which he is a part will far outlast the transience of the Roman Empire. It is this which liberates Paul - and all Christians - to submit to the authorities. This is an important point. Paul’s submission to Civil Authority is not on the basis of that Authority as an end in itself. Paul (and other Christians) are free to obey or not obey as is deemed in the best interests of the Gospel. His obedience - and His disobedience - is in relation to a higher authority. This is why authoritarian and totalitarian regimes have a hard time with the Church.

We see the same attitide in other Apostles and Church leaders. Their adherence to the laws of the Roman Empire and their willingness to subject themselves even to manifestly unjust rulings by courts is breathtaking. But there is again a subversive element that is exacerbated by the propensity of angelic beings to break them out of prison periodically. In such extraordinary circumstances, it is interesting to note that Peter is variously willing to continue public preaching in defiance of religoius authorities (Acts 5:42), or to ‘leave for another place’ (Acts 12:17).

Perhaps the most explicit moments of DISobedience are found in Acts 4:19 & 5:29. Both are in relation to the Sanhedrin; and specifically to their command not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18). Evangelism is an integral part of Christian discipleship. How are we to react when another authority structure within society demands that the Church ceases an activity that is fundamental to our dsicipleship? It is a simple question of w/Who has a higher authority (Matt.28:18). The One with higher authority has the greater claim on our obedience. This is always the case - whether it involves Government legislation, work place policy, cultural norms, family expectations or any other structure that makes demands contrary to those of Christ. To the extent that we are commanded to believe or behave in ways contrary to God’s will revealed in Christ, we remain free to disobey. How such non-cooperation is enacted, and whether it is overt or clandestine are questions we’ll put on hold for a couple more articles.

It is often suggested that such behaviour would constituate a bad witness. The Apostles would beg to differ. They were in fact bearing witness to the reality of the majesty of Jesus, and of their conviction that in Him and in His Kingdom they had found something worth suffering for.

Limits of Revolution (vi) The Prophetic role of the Church

There are plenty of examples that we could pick out of the Scriptures of where folk have - on the basis of their confession of Christ as Lord - been compelled to defy civil and at times religious authority. It hasn’t always been public or confrontational. II Kings 18, there is a conversation between Elijah and a palace administrtator called Obadiah (not the prophet!). Elijah’s very opn defiance of Ahab, is counter-balanced by Obadiah’s much more discreet disobedience. At a time when ‘Jezebel was killing off the Lord’s prophets, (18:3) Obadiah hid a hundred of them in caves and kept them fed and watered. Here is a costly but unobtrusive civil disobedience, one that genuinely put Obadiah’s life at risk. Apart from his conversation with Elijah, it is never mentioned.

Or we could look at Jeremiah, whose relationship with the civil and religious authorities of his day was, well … tense, to say the least. Jeremiah’s behaviour is consistently understood in terms of treachery, and he is arrested at one point on the charge of deserting to the Babylonians (Ch.37). His message is seen as so subversive to national and religous interest that he is regularly found under various strictures of arrest and imprisonment; and there are those who would gladly see him dead, and who conspire to that end. Yet he continues to recognise those in authority as God’s appointed leaders, and is willing to be obedient even when he is banned from the Temple (Jer.36:5). Although it has to be said that while he keeps the letter of the law, he is perhaps more nuanced when it comes to the spirit of it! Although he is ‘restricted’, he simply sends Baruch and a dictated sermon in his place.

What drives Jeremiah’s seemingly ambiguous relationship with those in authority. It is his call to be a prophet; and the Word of God that burns like a fire in his bones (20:9). His love for the people and for God drives him on in spite of a devestating lack of response. I have mentioned before that this ‘prophetic’ element must conincide with any form of civil disobedience that the Church might feel compelled to engage in. Indeed, more of the former might at times mitigate the need for the latter.

We sometimes hear it said that we cannot expect those individuals or societies that are not Christian to behave in Christian ways. At one level this is true (although various Bible teachers troughout history have understood part of the role of the DIvine Law to be to restrict sin and shape behaviour even in those who aren’t Christians themselves). Joyful Christian discipleship requires relationship with God, the redeeming work of Christ, and the presence of the Holy Spirit making possible a way of life that is not possible otherwise. But that is not to say that the Living God will not judge a fallen world by the standards of His justice and righeousness.

We might think that Jeremiah was right to speak prophetically to the nation of Judah. This is where we find the ancient Church. But Jeremiah clearly sees his prophetic mandate as extending beyond the Church. Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Kedar, Hazor, Elam and Babylon all find themselves in his sights (Ch.46-51). And he isn’t alone. Other prophets are called to speak into the situations of nations that in no way acknowledge the Lordship of Christ (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos all have lengthy sections to this effect; Obadiah’s whole book is addressed to Edom; and Nahum’s is addressed to Nineveh). The theological basis for this is simply that the God of Israel is the God of the nations, whether He is recognised as such or not (see e.g. Dan.4:32). This remains the case, and in our own context, we confess that Jesus is Lord not just over the Church in the UK, but over the UK itself. The Government remains answerable to Him who has ordained it, the nation to Him who has called it - like all nations - into being (Amos 9:7). All humanity, at personal and corporate levels, remains accountable to God.

In an established Church such as the Church of England, in which Bishops are enmeshed in the legislative structures of national life, we might expect this to be a more pronounced facet of Ecclesiastical ministry. In an ideal world civil and religious structures of authoirty would work in partnership, each fulfilling its God-given mandate to shape the life of society according to God’s holy Law. Government would seek to create an environment in which justice is prevalent, and citizens are protected and provided for, and which is conducive to Christians ‘living peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness’; this would provide the context in which the Church would fulfil her duties, joys and responsiblities.

But we don’t live in an ideal world.

Bonhoeffer (whose example and thinking we’ll look at more closely in a future post) suggested that there are three ways in which the Church can relate to Government when it fails to act in line with it’s God-given mandate:

(i) to question the State regarding its actions and their legitimacy

(ii) to aid those who suffer as a result of unjust or inappropriate State action

(iii) directly take action against the state to stop it from perpetrating evil - though this is only legitimate in situations where the Church sees its very existence as being threatened by the State.

For Bonhoeffer we can do such things because we have a better knowledge of the nature and purpose of the State, and of its limitations, than the State itself does. When the State stops behaving as God has ordained, the Church must prophetically call it back to its proper role… whatever that might cost the people of God in the process.

Limits of Revolution (v) Daniel pt 2

The question that plagues us is how do we - as Christians - live in a world that is increasingly antagonistic to Jesus and to discipleship, while maintaining our spiritual integrity. The temptation is to either be so ‘of the world’ that we are indistinguishable from it, or to be so withdrawn that we are no longer ‘in the world’ in any meaningful sense. In neither instance are we able to bear withness to Jesus.

Daniel strikes a much healthier balance. He remains in the world, but not of it. And as such he provides a great example of how to engage meaningfully with our wrold, whilst not being conformed to it. It’s hard ot imagine how Daniel could be ‘in’ the world any more than he is. In his prime-ministerial role, he is deeply engaged with the sustems of administering the rule of Babylon. We mgiht think it impossible to be authentically Christina in such a hostile environment, but Daniel proves us wrong. In spite of the temptation to keep his head down and just quietly get on with his job, it is clear that Daniel was well known as a Christian. He hadn’t kept it under wraps. It is also clear that his character was beyond reproach. Darius knows it, and so when he comes to power and wants to eradicate the systemic in his civil service, he knows Daniel is his man. It is equally clear that Daniel’s public character is underpinned by a disciplined devotional life that is shaped by the Scriptures (See Jer.29:7; Ps.55:16-17; I Kings 8:46f). All this is an open secret.

We are often naive in hoping that if we live a ‘good’ life, that is seen to be beyond reporach, that it will shine like a beacon and that people will be drawn to it. Some might, but equally there will be some whose own sinfulness is simply provoked by a lifeof righteousness (I Jn.3:12). In Daniel 6, this proves to be the case, and the conspiracy is hatched.

It’s interesting to see what Daniel doesn’t do when he discovers the plot against him. He doesn’t seem to resent Darius’ failure to see through the initial ruse; he doesn’t draw on his own vast political experince to outmanoeuvre his opponents; he doesn’t pull rank and exploit his own position to ask for an audience with the king. Daniel instead goes to the One Person he knows can make a difference (Dan.7:13-14). He goes to his God in prayer.

At first glance it appears he is playing right into the hands of his opponents, and at one level he is. But at a much deeper level, he is doing what he has done for decades and publicly maintaining his spiritual integrity as a Christian. Like his friends before him, he knows his God can save, but whether Christ intervenes or not, Daniel will not be intimidated into compromising his walk with Him. Again, we can only imagine how easy it would have been for Daniel to be convinced that it would be OK to simply stop praying for a month… or to just change his pattern of prayer so that he isn’t discovered. But Daniel undestands that this plot hinges on precisely his faithfulness to Jesus. The one thing that mustn’t falter, is Daniel’s commitment to Him.

Again, Daniel follows his disobedience with a submission to the stated legal consequences of his actions. Unlike Nebuchadnezzar in Chapter 3, there is no personal animosity - quite the opposite. Darius however, doesn’t have the moral capacity to override the process, nor it seems the legal power of his predecessor to simply change the rules when it suits him. It is too easy for bureaucrats to justify (or indeed to proprogate) patent injustice by following due process. That is something that we should be aware of and prepared for; or indeed prepared not to collude with if we find ourselves part of a system that is doing what is wrong, but justifying it on the basis that the right procedures were followed.

We’re so familiar with the story, that it doesn’t surprise us that Daniel gets delivered from the Lion’s Den. But even in the Bible, this is an almost unique situation. The purpose of Daniel 6 is not to suggest that when we engage in civil disobedience for the sake of righteousness we can count on Jesus to ‘shut the mouths of lions’. As we noted in our previous article, there are too many Biblical passages to the contrary for us to suggest that. From Abel on, many Christians have been called on to shed their blood, or to pay the price as living and ‘bloodless’ martyrs for their faithfulness to Jesus. And not just within the covers of the Bible. Where was the Angel of the LORD to shut the mouths of the lions in the Colosseums of Ancient Rome?

We’ve already seen how the LORD is always present in the suffering of His people. (Acts 9:5, note that persecution of the Church is the persecution of Jesus). There are times when His presence results in deliverance, and times when it results in sustaining patient endurance. It might have been that Paul had Dan.6 in mind when he wrote to Timothy:

At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion’s mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

II Tim.4:16-18

This is Paul who has spent years under unjust imrpisonment, and who will presently be martyred under Nero. Paul knows the LORD has the power to deliver, but he also celebrates the LORD’s power that enables him to endure. It is only because of the presence of Jesus by His Spirit, that Paul is able to continue to confess Christ faithfully.

We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.

II Cor.4:8-10

As we saw the other morning in our overview of Acts, there is an inevitabilty about suffering in faithful discipleship and in the cause of the Gospel. We cannot follow a crucified Messiah and think otherwise. We are not however called to search out opportunities to provoke such conflict. We are not to manufacture the sort of situation in which we must disobey civil authority in order to obey Christ. That isn’t what Daniel did. The situation came to him after 6 decades and more of faithful service without confrontation. We don’t relish the possiblity of such a spiritual skirmish. But the question of whether, when it comes to us, we will have the sensitivity to recognise the moment for what it is, and the strength to stand in it, may depend (as it did for Daniel) on the depth and discipline of our devotional life. The very thing that makes Daniel vulnerable to mistreatment turns out to be the very thing that enables him to be victorious in it. Civil disobedience is built on the foundation of spiritual obedience, or else it isn’t an expression of our discipelship. It is, as we know, possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason.

 

 

 

 

A Bishop preaches about a pandemic

John Hooper was Bishop of Gloucester and Worcester in the mid 16th century. When plague struck, Hooper wrote a sermon to be read in all Churches in his Diocese… It makes hair-raising reading.

He begins by pointing out that just as we are ‘blind and unthankful’ for God’s favour and mercy when we are enjoying health, peace and prosperity, so we are ‘blind and insensible’ of His justice when He ‘punishes us in sickness’. We tend to think only of the way in which a pandemic affect people in this age. Hooper challenges us to think about the eternal implications of widespread sickness and death. Against that backdrop, Hooper charges his clergy - as watchmen - to explain what God is doing in times of ‘plague’. To help them in this duty, Hooper has written this sermon, based on Mk.1:15, ‘Repent and believe the Gospel’.

What, he asks, is the ‘chief cause of the pestilence’? We’ll need to understnad this before we can apply a sufficient rememdy. We must consult physicians if we are to understand the physical dimensions of this question, but we must consult the Physician of our souls if we are to appreciate the whole of the sickness we face. For that we will need the counsel of God’s Word.

Hooper is unambiguous and unapologetic: ‘The chief causes of all plagues and sicknesses, is sin’. He isn’t suggesting a strict cause and effect in terms of any individual’s expereince. He isn’t saying that only the sinful get sick (as if those who don’t get aren’t sinful), but at a more general level - there is sickness in the world because of human sin. Death came into the world through sin (Rom.5:12), and it because of sin int he world that ‘God sends the plague of pestilence and all other diseases that punish towards death’.

Plague and pestilence however is not beyond the providence of God, and as such ‘the people [must] understand both the cause of this plague fom God … and how to [respond to] the time of sickness, or any other disaster that shall happen to them by God’s appointment, as God may be glorified in them’. By the same teaching, those who are ill, and who are dying, may be ‘assured through true and godly doctrine to die in the Lord, and so be eternally blessed’. Such a diagnosis will be as shocking to our modern sensiblities as it would have been to Hooper’s original congregations (and probably some of the clergy being asked to read this sermon in their pulpits), but in defense Hooper cites Ps.39 & Dt.28.

Hooper goes on to argue that we need a rememdy that will deal with every aspect of our suffering. There are both physical and spiritual causes for a plague. ‘…the principal cause of pestilence is contempt for God’s word’. Clergy and Magistrates (i.e. civil authorities) both must ensure that they teach and minister in ‘the true knowledge and obedience of God’s laws…’; and we all have a responsiblity to ensure that we have ‘true, loving, faithful, trusting and obedient hearts’. If we disobey the Law of God, Hooper warns, ‘the plague will not cease … no matter what defence man (sic) makes against it’. Many medicines are devised and we should both give thanks for them, and take advantage of them, inasmuch as sin is also the cause of pestilence, we should equally avoid and shun it in all its forms.

This shunning and avoidance of sin is what is meant by the word ‘repentance’. This is the ‘medicine of Christ’, and should be taken alongside the medicines offered by doctors. ‘We must by God’s wisdom, God’s word and his most true religion amend our faults and turn to true and godly honouring of Him’. Until we acknowledge that we have turned away from the truth of God to the error and opinions of mere mortals, we will not have the healing that God’s pestilence would lead us to. We are too accustomed to doing evil, and too ignorant of God’s ways, and the only remedy is ‘the right understanding of God’s Word’.

‘Repentance that God requires ist he return of the sinner from sin into a new life in Christ … and springs from the knowledge of sin by the Law of God. From such knowledge comes hatred of sin. From the hatred of sin proceeds the leaving and departure from sin. From the departure from sin comes, by faith through Christ’s blood, remission for sin’.

‘This medicine of repentance consists in these parts: first in knowledge of sin; then in hatred of it; thirdly in forsaking of sin; fourhtly in beleiving the forgivenss of sins for Christ’s sake; and fifthly to live a virtuous and godly life, to honour God and to show obedience to God’s Law…’.

Hooper closes his sermon with a call to evangelism.

‘Now that it pleases God for our offences to show by plagues and sickness how He is offended, let us all … call upong them diligently to repent and beleive the Gospel, and to live a godly and virtuous life, that for Christ’s sake he will turn mercifully his plagues from us…’.

The full transcript of this sermon can be found in ‘Godly directions in a time of plague’ ed. Matthew & Therese McMahon, pub Puritan Publications (pp.11-32)