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

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)

Limits of Revolution (iv) Daniel pt 1

The most famous instances of civil disobedience are found in the Book of Daniel. Whilst it is tempting to jump to Daniel 6, let’s take a quick look at Shadrach, Mishach and Abednego first! Their story is found in Daniel 3.

But let’s put it in context. It is remarkable how far these three young men go in their recognition of the authority of Babylon. They are deeply enmeshed in administering an idolatrous, imperialistic, and frequently cruel kingdom. And while they have been invovled in challenging the rules and norms before (Dan.1) it has always been within the limits of the law. They have earned the respect of those who oversee their roles within the civil service, and are already on the fast track in terms of promotion.

It is also worth acknowledging that their uncompromising faithfulness to their God has made them some enemies. That much seems clear from the wider book of Daniel, and I don’t think we’d be reading too much into the story if we imagine a certain glee in the tone of the astrologers who seem to take too much delight in coming forward to denounce the Jews (3:8-12). Notice too how complex the situation is. There are religious elements, in that they are being asked to bow down before ‘an image of gold’ (3:1). Nebuchadnezzar has instituted a kind of national religion that is based around his own defiance of the Living God. According to the dream of Dan.2 the eternal kingdom will be that of Christ, the Rock cut out from the mountain of the Lord (2:45). Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom is a temporary phenomena, represented by the golden head, that gives way to the Persian empire of silver (2:32 & 36-38). But in Ch.3 Nebuchadnezzar sets up a statue of his own - made of gold in its entirity. The message is clear: ‘I am lord of history - it is my kingdom that will last through the ages’. And so the religious elements are intertwined with political and nationalistic elements. And there are personal and relational aspects too: Nebuchadnezzar’s anger at what he takes to be a personal challenge (3:13-15); and of course the professional rivalry and jealousy of the astrologers.

We can barely imagine the pressure they felt as they stood on the plain of Dura. When you read of the immense multi-sensory dynamics, calculated to inspire awe and compliance; when you think of the furnace; the whispering voices that must have told them that this wasn’t the place to make their stand… it was just an empty political act of no real significance… just go along with it all, no-one will read anything into it… you’ve already assimilated so much, one more step won’t matter.

But it does. And they know it… and so when the music played, and everyone else ‘fell down and worshipped the image of gold’ (3:7), three lonely figures remained standing on that vast plain. The simple fact that Nebuchadnezzar had been established by God did not make him God. The Lord has also established limitations. And so they stood. They didn’t instigate the situation they found themselves in. They weren’t looking for martyrdom, or even to make a statement. But they found themselves forced to make one nonetheless. We’ll see in a later study that civil disobedience doesn’t have to be a public spectacle, but in some cases, it’s hard to hide.

And they do it self-consciously because of what they believe about the Lord. The know the God they serve. He is living and active. He is able to save them from retribution, but whether He does or not, whether they live or die in the next moments, they are resolved to serve that God with integrity and faithfulness: ‘we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up’ (3:18). They anticipate the example of Jesus, who ‘did not retaliate …[who] made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly’ (I Pet.2:23). There is a sublime confidence that shapes their disobedience, and their capacity to face the state’s sanctions. This is an important aspect to consider. We’ll see in the thinking of Martin Luther King for example, that accepting the penalty for disobedience is how we continue to acknowledge the authority of government even while compelled to disobey it.

They stand firm in the face of personal anger (3:13 & 19). They are not experiencing the cool, dispassionate process of due legal proceedings. And their resolve does not waver, even as those who are carrying them to the furnace are consumed. There was no intimation that Christ would miraculously save them. Yet, save them He does. So completely that there is not even a smell of smoke on their Babylonian clothes. The point of the story is not to suggest that Jesus will always turn up to save His people. Passages such as Heb.11:37f, or Rev.6:9f, or Acts 7:55f, all teach otherwise. He is always with us in our trials, but at times to sustain and at times to save.

Our point as we draw this article to a close is simply to notice first that God’s people are at times required to disobey earthly rulers, and secondly to recognise that to do so in a godly way requires a clear vision of the power of the God we serve. It is our knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness (Titus 1:1). But also to appreciate the evangelistic power of refusing to compromise. This is a key moment that leads to the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar. We can be so worried about whether our civil disobedience would be a bad witness, that we can forget that in the economy of God, it might actually prove to be a good witness. If nothing else it demonstrates to the world that we have something worth sacrificing for… something we value so highly we will not betray it, even if it means suffering or death. Or better, Someone…

Limits of Revolution (iii) Exodus

As in everything else they teach, Apostles such as Peter and Paul (whose writings we began to consider in the first article in this series) stand in line with what we now call the Old Testament. Their thinking on the relationship between Church and State enjoys the twin privilege of being rooted in the Scriptures and being itself inspired by the Holy Spirit. And in the Law and the prophets there are numerous examples of those who, on the basis of their relationship with the Living God, refuse to comply with the contrary demands of civil authority.

Perhaps the most obvious place to start is in the opening chapters of Exodus. As part of one of the most vicious expriences of persecution the Church has endured, the king of Egypt unleashes a policy of gender specific genocide. Unwilling even to resource the efforts to eliminate the peple of God, Pharaoh delegates the responsibility of killing the male babies to the Hebrew midwives themselves: ‘When you are helping hte Hebrew women during child birth … if the baby is a boy, kill him….’ (Ex.1:16). Of course, this isn’t the last time that a dictator seeks to prevent the birth of a Saviour (Matt.2:16), but that’s for another time! Our focus in this article is on the midwives’ decision to disobey Pharaoh.

Ex.1:17 tells us about their decision: ‘The midwives however feared God, and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do. They let the boys live’. There are two elements to their decision. Positively, they feared God. Their rebellion wasn’t born out of personal angst, or political preference. It is rooted in their vision of God, His commands (Gen.9:6), and of His purposes for His people. It is rooted in their awareness of His majesty and His supreme authority, and that they too are accountable to Him. In this sense their decision is a deeply theological and spiritual one, rather than a merely moral or political one. It is easy to miss this, but it is in fact the foundation of authentic Christian civil disobedience. They do what they do because of their vision of God and of their relationship with Him.

This is also what gives them the clarity and courage required to make their decision. It’s a similar dynamic to the one Jesus articulates in Matt.10:28, when he is again addressing a context of persecution. The basic question is who do I fear more? Earthly or Heavenly rulers? Whose displeasure am I most anxious to avoid? Whose reprisal am I most concerned to evade?

The outworking of that is their refusal to be party to Pharaoh’s brutal cruelty. They won’t simply ‘obey orders’ or follow policy, or just do their job, as if that would have eased their conscience, or helped them to avoid the dilemma of disobedience, and their fear of the consequences. Their fear of God helped them to concude that obedience to God is always the safest thing. Mind you, that is something that it takes great faith to cling to when you are facing the consequences of defiance of earthly rulers.

The midwives are ‘wise as serpents and innocent as doves’ in their subsequent dealing with Pharaoh. There is a huge amount of ink spilt on the question of whether they lied to Pharaoh, and whether this was legitimate. They may well have stood in the grey area between not being completely honest, and actaul dishonesty. Perhaps the Hebrew women were in fact vigorous and gave brith before the midwive’s arrived (1:19), but in the light of v.17, that is unlikely to be the whole story. Perhaps they were mocking Pharaoh as well as disobeying him. Whatever our moral sensitivities and scruples - and it is easier to have them when we’re not in the same position - ‘God was kind to the midwives …’ (1:20). Their preferencing His laws over the unjust laws of human rulers reveals His seal of approval, and their actions had ramifications for global history in their own generation and for every generation that followed. It is worth pausing on that. GOd is pleased with with their civil disobedience. It was a constructive, right and godly thing to do. It was something the LORD took pleasure in, not something tolerated as the lesser of two evils. There are times when to obey God and honour Him demands we disobey and dishonour earthly structures of authority.

We might wonder if their behavious was so wise? After all, the story takes a turn for the worse because of their actions. It is likely that at least some among the Hebrews disapproved of their action given what happens next. Every Egyptian is given authority to throw Hebrew boys into the Nile. Can you imagine the atmosphere of perpetual terror this created? But the rightness o the midwives’ actions is not to be judged by its immediate consequences. It is likely of course, that not every Egyptian took advantage of the order… though some undoubtedly did, and took it upon themselves to police the Hebrew ghettos. The quiet, unspectacular defiance of Pharaoh through passive disobedience, simply not doing as they were told, is not uncommon in a situation where a majority of people recognise that injustice is at work. It creeps even into Pharaoh’s own household, as we see his daughter draw Moses out of the river, rahter than throw him in it.

And in this we are reminded of the place of God’s providence. God is sovereign over the rulers of the earth (something that will be made explicit later in Exodus [see 3:18-22, 4:21 etc], and in the Scriptures, just in case there is any doubt at this stage), as well as over the affairs of His Church. As we work through our series we will have to navigate this colossal theological truth. It provides the context within which we wrestle with the question of civil disobedience, and the consequences that will flow from it when compelled to engage in it.

What is intriguing though is Moses’ own divinely orchestrated strategy. Have you ever noticed that he doesn’t engage in civil diobedience? He could have simply defied Pharaoh and led the people out of Egypt without even telling him that he was doing so. Presumably God could have kept them safe in the midst of such an operation. Yet Moses is sent to confront Pharaoh and to demand that he give permission for the Exodus. There is much that God is doing here in terms of demonstrating His sovereignty over this ancient super-power and the man at its’ head. But it does give us pause for thought, as we realise that civil disobedience isn’t always the appropriate response even to the most evil and cruel of regimes. Alongside the defiance of the Church in the face of oppression and tyranny is a second respnose - that of prophetic confrontation. The two are often intertwined, but they are distinguishable nonetheless.

The Limits of Revolution (ii)

A bit of a detour in this second article with a statement of intent, a clarification, an aspiration and a warning.

The statement of Intent is that in this series, which will likely take us through the second Lockdown, I am aiming to do two things. The frist is to outline the Bible’s teaching on our relationship (as Christians) with civil authority and to seek to learn from others in the history of the Church how to understand that teaching and to put it into practise. It’s interesting that so many of the ‘heroes of the faith’ (though they would certainly disdain such a title, and we should probably be circumpsect about using it) are those who stood faithfully against a state who for a variety of reasons behaved in a way that sought to restrict the life and mission of the Church. Those in government at the time may or may not have intended that to be the result of their policies, but it was the outcome nonetheless. It is also worth noting that many others were caught up in and suffered under the same policies, and often felt they too had to oppose them, albeit for different reasons.

The clarification is that I am not at this stage calling for any form of civil disobedience. I know that will be a relief to some and a frustration to others. My own personal belief is that the time will come in many of our lifetimes, when such things will need to be. But - and that is a crucial ‘but’ - we still live in a society where, relatively speaking, we are free to live and worship as Christians. Many sense that freedom is being eroded, and we may find that precedents set during times of crisis come back to haunt us in the future. But at the moment we would be hard pressed, I think, to justify wide spread civil disobedience. We ought first to explore all legal and legitimate forms of protest and expression of concern, and only when the effectiveness of that is exhausted are we at liberty to begin to think about civil disobedience - and even then within certain limits, as we’ll see as this series progresses.

It might also be worth saying that in pursuing any form of protest or engagement with the legislative process, I for one am not seeking to bring about a situation where people are obliged to gather with the Church in corporate worship. If you have been following my blog since March, you’ll have little trouble surmising my conviction about the indispensible nature of corproate worship and mission. But there is no compulsion for anyone to join in the physical congregation, and we are working hard at MIE to ensure that those who - for a wide variety of reasons - choose not to, are still able to connect with the life and worship of our Church as possible. The freedom to live and worship as a Christian (or not) is a freedom of conscience issue, and should not be coerced. In a way that is the issue lying behind much of the concern and anxiety that we are seeing across the Church in the UK. That freedom has been curtailed. Not by common agreement, but by the force of law. Corporate worship has - in the words of one MP - been criminalised. The freedom to choose whether we gather for worship or not has been taken from us.

And so my aspiration is not to make bloodless martyrs of us all. Let’s not get overly-dramatic. In real terms it would be wildly over-stating the situation to speak of persecution. My own sense is that the situation we find oursleves in has little malice behind it, at least at the level of human decision making. Like many Bishops, Christian leaders, MPs and campaigners, I would like to see our historic freedoms restored, and I have little doubt they will be. In the meantime, I would like to take the opportunity to explore with you the Bible’s teaching on civil authority, and how the Church is to engage with that authority. As I said in a previous post, the situation we are in demonstrates that these are not idle curiosities, but speak very directly into the fluid relationship between Church and State, a relationship that as we have seen, can change inn very rapid and unexpected ways.

And so to the warning. This is a dangerous time for any Church. Our inability to meet as a whole Church since March, and the restrictions that we were subject to even when some of the congregation could meet, will have taken its toll on the Body of Christ. As a Church we need to recognise that there is a wide spectrum of opinion on the situation we are confronting, and given the pressured context we are living in, it is tempting to express those opinions in a strident manner. Some of you think the Church not have physically gathered at all during the pandemic, and that the governments actions are entirely justified; some of you think we should run the gauntlet of civil disobeidence now, that we should just meet anyway and risk the fine. We need to be aware of the bredth and intenstiy of feeling that runs through the congregation. Given the pressure that people are under at the moment, and the levels of anxiety being felt, it is also worth recognising that covnersations can escalate very quickly. It was particularly poignant that we were looking at Eph.4:1-12 on Sunday.

And so back to the series. In our next post we’ll start to explore directly some instances in the Bible where folk felt they could not in good conscience follow the directives of those in positions of civil authority. We mgiht find ourselves looking at some familiar Sunday School stories in a very different way!

Ancient Wisdom (iii)

Why is Ecclesiastes so depressing? Is life really this bleak? It’s a tough place to start, but Solomon’s point is that life ‘under the sun’ is meaningless & futile. Thankfully, he’ll go on later in the book to explain that there is another Son we can live life under… and He is the Wisdom of God.

The Limits of Revolution (i)

The Christian’s relationship with the state is always ambivalent. You’ll have often heard me preach that Christians should be the best and most conscientious citizens. But that is born out of our prior citizenship of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is important to realise: we are not conscientious because we are committed to the cultural and political structures that shape our nation’s life. We may have our preferences when it comes to politics… perhaps even our convictions. But Christianity is not wedded to any particular politcal or social environment. The Church has lived in and through the whole gamut of political contexts, from near Anarchy to liberal democracy to totalitarian regimes. In each she has found ways to worhsip and thrive, and in each she has found that which is toxic to her integrity and existence.

The Church’s default, then is conscientious obedience to the authority of a state, but because of our recognition of a higher Authority. As such, we take with utmost seriousness passages such as Rom.13:1-7; I Pet.2:13-16; Titus 3:1. ‘The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted…’ And we do so even where those authorities corrupt and abuse their position. This can lead to deeply disturbing conclusions. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul is writing to a Church figuring out what it means to be Christian in a context where the state has already become the enemy. Yet he refers to Nero - who infamously persecuted the Church - as ‘God’s servant’, and continues to call Christians to civll obedience. The fact that the State kills and imprisons Christians does not give us a mandate to anarchy. A government’s sin doesn’t justify the Church’s sin.

Are we then locked into an uncritical jingoistic patriotism: my country right or wrong? The question of when and how Christians must conscientiously break the law is one that we haven’t had to wrestle with for many years in the UK. As I mentioned in a previous post, we have lived through an anomolous period in recent years, but one that seems to be coming to an end. It is time to dust this question off and find answers. We may need them sooner than we think.

Passages such as Rom.13 have been used regularly to silence the Church in the face of ungodly regimes. Richard Wurmbrand tells the story of a Communist Interrogator ‘preaching’ to him from Rom.13, seeking to undermine Wurmbrand’s own decision to disobey the Party. In some cases, it has been used to justify the Church’s support of patent injustice. You only have to think of tragic errors of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, infamously supporting Apartheid; or the UN-confessing Church in Nazi Germany (we’ll think about Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church later in the series), or large swathes of the Church in Spain and Portugal during the conquestadorial periods of their empires. But there are at least three key observations that mean the use of such passages to silence the Church and enforce aquiescense is simply wrong.

The first is that Paul teaches, alongside the Church’s obligation to obey, the rulers’ obligation to do good (Rom.13:4). The Church in the UK has long since lost any sense of being a prophetic voice that calls government to realise it holds only a delegated authority, and as such remains a steward that will be held to account. In short, God will judge those who hold political authority, in large part, on the basis of how they treated the Church within the nation. The old BCP used to teach us to pray that under our governemnt ‘we may be godly and quietly governed’, and that God would grant to ‘all who are put in authority … that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of true religion and virtue’. Again we’ll come back to subversive Anglican spirituality in a later post, but let’s just notice here that the Church of England prays and believes that the purpose of Government includes creating a society in which the Church may flourish. As in so many other places, Anglicanism, properly understood, is richly Biblical, politically bold, and pastorally sensitive. This all resonates with the defiance of the prophets, which will also occupy our attention later in the series…

Secondly, Paul doesn’t stop his political ethic in Rom.13:7. He continues on to speak about our commitment to another (higher) Law to which we remain indebted. The Law of God, summarised in the command to love our neighbour. There is no evidence in the Bible that God is pleased with a Church that is complicit in legislation that undermines our ability and freedom to love. Similarly Peter teaches both that we should ‘submit [ourselves] for the Lord’s sake to every human authority’, and continues to say that we should ‘fear God … revere Christ as Lord’. The Apostles may be not so much calling for uncritical obedience, as he is providing a series of criteria for discerning the faithfulness with which a government is fulfilling its God’s given mandate. Yes, we give to Caesar what is Caesars, but also to God what is Gods. This is our poltical ethic in a nutshell - and we live in the tension it creates.

And finally (at least as far as this post goes!) Rom.13 is written by the Apostle Paul. It’s worth bearing in mind how much time Paul spent in prison. Likewise, I Peter 2:13-16 was written by Peter. Peter, who in Acts 4:19 and 5:29 explicitly defies ‘human authority’ at the point where it seeks to prevent his obedience to Christ. However we make sense of such passages, we need to remember they were written by those who we prepared - indeed knew they had a divine mandate - to conscientiously disobey rulers where those rulers proved unfaithful to their own God-given role and responsibility.

There is, of course, nothing new in the Apostles’ willingness to stand against human authority that conspires to silence the Gospel, and undermine the life and integrity of the Church. They are standing in a long tradition of men and women who understood that their first and greatest calling is to obey the Living God. At times they paid for their spiritualism heroism with their lives.

More on this as we go through lockdown…

On fear mongering - and when it isn't!

Sometimes when we hear alarming messages about the place of Christianity in the life of our nation, we can dismiss those making them as fear-mongering doom merchants. ‘That’, we assume ‘could never happen here’. WHen as ex-PM stands in parliament and warns about the precedents being set this week, it becomes lightly harder to shrug it off as uninformed hysteria. But as Theresa May said in the House of Commons:

"I just want to make one word about public worship and echo the concerns of others. My concern is that the Government today, making it illegal to conduct an act of public worship for the best of intentions, sets a precedent that could be misused for a government in the future with the worst of intentions, and it has unintended consequences."

As you know, the decision by the government to close places of worship is facing a legal challenge. Whatever the outcome of that may be, there is an established concensus developing that in distinguishing between gatherings, and criminalising gatherings for worship (as opposed to the first lockdown where all gatherings were banned) a rubicon has been crossed. Whether we think it will ever develop into something more insidious or not, the UK now has a legal precedent for criminalising gathering for public worship, aka going to Church.

What we need to realise - and realise urgently - is that in the UK we have lived through a spiritual anomoly. There are things that have happened in the history of our country that have made the place of Christiainity in our nation almost unique in the history of the world. There are strong signs that this anomoly is coming to an end (see e.g. today’s article on the Christian Institute website about ‘Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes in England and Wales proposed by Law Commission’). As our anomolous expereince of living as disciples of Jesus is eroded, we will have to come to terms with the fact that the marginalisiation and in turn, persecution endured by the Church throughout most of the world could soon be our own experience.

‘It could never happen here’ are the notoriously famous last words of every free-society…