Y Safle

Should children be present in the communion service? This was a question recently on MInTheGap’s weblog. It is also a question I have come across before regarding practices in churches where infant baptism is practiced. The question is asked, “if baptism is the mark of a Christian, what right do we have to refuse communion to children?”

As I understand it, membership of the Christian Church is through baptism. This is, I think, a subtlety that is important to protestant congregations that practice infant baptism. Because those who believe in baptising children too young to answer for themselves, do so on the belief that there is some special benefit of so being a part of the Church, whilst not actually a believer. c.f. 1 Cor 7:14 (which is talking about marriage partners, but it perhaps conveys the same idea).

Now if this accepted, then it follows that when one comes to faith, the promises made for them at baptism are now owned by them. Their membership of the church is confirmed in some sense by their faith.

On the other hand, those of us who hold to believers baptism say that faith should precede the baptism, and the baptism itself is the symbolic or sacramental enactment of our new birth. But even so, we can still hold to a view that the children present in our church are in a priveleged position, benefiting from teaching and nurture and the love of our community. Churches that practice believer’s baptism usually have some kind of dedication ceremony symbolising the special responsibility of the church to that child.

Now communion is a feast for the believer, and only for them. If people are baptised into the Church, and properly instructed as to the purpose and meaning of communion, then the act of taking communion itself is a declaration of faith. Thus, someone who might say that the eucharist defines the church is quite right. The true Church, the body of baptised believers is self defined by the very act of taking communion.

This being so, it seems to me that any age limit applied by us on the taking of communion simply says that we do not believe anyone under that age can be a true believer, or sufficiently capable of making a declaration of faith.

Now we might argue that this is so, but I wonder how this differs from the argument that is thrown against “believer’s baptism”, which argues that very young children are either unjustly denied baptism, or else the believers baptism is virtually infant baptism in any case.

One minister I spoke to recently suggested we don’t baptise the children until they are eight, but this still suggests we do not believe the statement of faith of a seven year old, if they should make one.

It is all something of a knotty issue, but I think the key issues are flexibility, a good understanding of grace, and the ability to believe the testimony of young children, without falling into gullibility.

But one thing is clear: if we don’t allow children at the communion table - if we just ship them off to their own age specific activities - then we are making a statement that these people are not believers.

The solution, as practiced in many churches, is to allow children to take part in the communion service but suggest that they receive a special prayer rather than the bread and the wine.

Now in churches with believer’s baptism, we have a good date for when they first take communion - at the first opportunity after their baptism. Churches that have infant baptism, or believer’s baptism only after a certain age have a thornier problem. But if children are really to benefit from the worship of a communion service, and if they are to understand how deeply we feel about Christ’s sacrifice, and the glorious hope that we will one day drink from the fruit of the vine with Christ in His Father’s kingdom, then however we deal with this issue, we are wrong to take them out of the service altogether.

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

Noah Webster (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language)

Photo by
Jonathon D Colman

Selahv mentioned in a comment the disdain of the world for America - but there are in fact two distinct types of anti-Americanism. There is one kind which is just prejudice. There are people who disdain Americans simply because they are in a different “in group”, and it is fallen human nature to disdain out groups. Therefore every bad thing from America (fast food and sugary drinks for instance) is held against them. Every good thing (Clam chowder for instance) is ignored.

Such prejudice is hard to battle against, but it really is not Americans that need worry about this. The same people that hate Americans because of this prejudice probably have similar prejudices about any out group they care to consider.

However, there is another kind of anti-Americanism which is really anti-American policy, rather than the nation or its people. This is the feeling expressed in surveys that suggest people across the world believe that America is the biggest threat to world peace. This feeling comes around because of the gun boat diplomacy of one or other American administrations.

The Opium Wars

Note that America is no different from other nations here. In the 19th Century, the UK fought two wars against China to force them to accept the trade in opium. The drug was legal in the UK at the time - used as a seditive - particularly for gripey babies! But China banned the drug, citing public morals as the reason. After an incident when Chinese authorities boarded British ships and confiscated smuggled opium, a contingent of the British navy, including the new “iron clads” steamed into China. The fleet was larger than anything the Chinese had expected, and the first opium war was quickly lost. The peace treaty opened up a number of Chinese ports and ceded a lease on Hong Kong island to the British.

If you asked at that time who was the biggest threat to world piece, the answer in Shanghai would no doubt have been “the British”.

All countries act out of self interest most of the time. The thing that people dislike about American policy is its willingness to flout international law and order to pursue its self interest. Failure to become signatories to the ICC, arming of Israel as they kill people in Lebanon, The invasion of Iraq, support of regimes that persecute their own people, the arms trade, sidelining the UN and excessive use of the veto when the issue concerns client states, failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol - the list goes on (and these are just the recent examples).

But whilst I personally have a problem with all of these policies, I am not personally against Americans. (Indeed I am opposed to much UK policy for very similar reasons, but I am not anti-British).

Iraq

Selahv was speaking about Iraq, so the question is: how does this help Iraq?

We are where we are, and Iraq is suffering. What can we do? Cut and run? That would cause the disintegration of the nation. Stay the course? There is no sign that this strategy will ever succeed.

We pray for peace in Iraq - and we pray for wisdom and humility in our leaders. Particularly the humility to go to the United Nations and ask for help. If the occupying force could be replaced with a peace keeping force, and if we gave up our claims to Iraqi assets, just as we forced Russia and France to give up their claims, then there may yet be a hope for this country.

It would take a miracle for the US to willingly humble themselves and pursue this problem through the UN. It would take another miracle to see the policy succeed, and peace finally come to the nation of Iraq.

But fortunately, I believe in miracles.

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

Over several months of last year I reposted some essays I had written on the book of Joel. These formed a series which you can find using the “Joel” tag on this site, but now for the first time here is a table of contents for the whole series:

1. Joel 1:1
2. Joel 1:2
3. Joel 1:3
4. Joel 1:5
5. Joel 1:7-13
6. Joel 1:14
7. Joel 1:15-19
8. Joel 2:1-11
9. Joel 2:12-13
10. Joel 2:13-14
11. Joel 2:15-16
12. Joel 2:17-18
13. Joel 2:19,21
14. Joel 2:22-25
15. Joel 2:26-27
16. Joel 2:28-29
17. Joel 2:30-32
18. Joel 3:1-3
19. Joel 3:5-8
20. Joel 3:9-13
21. Joel 3:14
22. Joel 3:15-21

Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 22:21 (Authorised Version of King James)

What is that doing there? That was certainly the question of someone writing to me who wanted to argue that the Bible is full of mythology.

Fortunately it is an issue that is well descrobed in a number of works, including Isaac Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. ISBN-13: 978-0517345825.

Asimov tells us that there is a certain animal, known to the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures as the ראם (”re’em”) and to modern zoologists as the aurochs (Bos primigenius) or wild ox, that is often portrayed in Mesopotamian murals and bas-reliefs as well as the famous Lascaux (Cro-magnon) cave paintings.

The aurochs is nearly always shown in profile, so that one horn is completely hidden behind the other. It thus appears to have only one horn, and apparently it was sometimes nicknamed “the one-horned.” It is completely extinct today (despite being an ancestor of the modern domesticated cow), and even in the time of the scholars who translated the Psalms from Hebrew into Greek for the Septuagint (LXX), it was seldom seen, certainly in Egypt.

Thus those scholars, who knew it only from the bas-reliefs and had never seen an actual specimen, and who had no word in Greek for an aurochs, called it “monokeros,” meaning one-horned. (By the same token Rhinoceros, means nose-horned, and triceratops means three horned face).

This is what autrochs was called in the LXX, and the Latin translation of the Psalms, being made fromthe LXX, reads “unicorn” (”corn” is Latin for “horn” as in “cornucopia” meaning “horn of plenty”)

Now there are certain changes in words that follow regular patterns, as speakers of the language seek for easier and quicker ways to pronounce words. Certain letter changes can be followed from language to language. For some reason, it happens that in the course of a generation, one letter sound can be almost completely replaced with another. Early in the history of the Anglo Saxon languages, all words starting with “p” had the sound replaced with an “f” (thus “pisg” became “fisg” - fish and so on.)

Another of these letter changes is c, which often becomes “ch” as in “loch” or “bach”, and then becomes just an “h” (before dropping out of the language altogether).

In Latin, the “c” sounds are often replaced with “h” sounds in English. Hence Latin citra becomes English hither, caput becomes head and so on. Corn thus becomes horn. Unicorn is the one horned. Modern translations however, often call this animal the wild ox. That is, after all, what it was.

Did the ancient Hebrews suppose that the re’em actually had only one horn? Apparently not, for in Deut 33:17, we read: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of an aurochs.” Here the word “re’em” is used in the singular, indicating that the single re’em had more than one horn.

Someone raised an old bugbear that evangelists are in it for the money.

John Wesley (when asked to give an account of his taxable assets by a tax collection officer) replied that he had a silver teaspoon, but beyond that he did not think he had any such assets.

There are still many people with a like attitude today, but unfortunately all our attention is constantly turned towards the brood of vipers who spend every last minute begging money from their professional multimedia operations.

I don’t think they are really radicals in any sense: they do exactly what politicians do, and what the entertainment industry does. They package and sell a product, “guaranteed” to make you happy and prosperous, but when you part with your money and remove the trimmings you find you are left with nothing.

That is not Christianity. It is not representative of the Church, and many Christians openly oppose these people, but I guess that turning the tables on the moneychangers is old news (and the moneychangers have lawyers now).

Should we get involved in apologetic debates? And what do we hope to achieve with them?

I believe the most important method of witnessing is through our personal testimony. That apologetic reasoning is very occasionally succesful in winning people for Christ is undeniable. I had a friend who became a Christian by such persuasion of the evidence, but ultimately even he would not have become a Christian were it not for his friendship with Christians.

Apologetics has its place, but I find it a fairly small place. It is the Holy Spirit that does a work within us, and no one can reason themselves into heaven without the promptings of the Spirit, and no one can resist the Spirit’s call, even though they may have questions still.

This, I believe, is the normal way of these things. God calls us, we respond, and the answers of apologetics are of some use in dealing with doubts, but rarely of much use to those who are unsaved, unless they are earnestly seeking people who are so constrained by doubt that they cannot progress into a relationship with the invisible God, nor his image, his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

I suppose that apologetics can be useful in convincing someone that Christians are not believing something without evidence - that we have a reason for our belief, and it is not mere superstition. But maybe that is all.

• I think we so often get our emphasis wrong. We spend so much time reading “apologetics” when all around us people are dieing unsaved. We should instead be praying. If it is the Holy Spirit that moves our hearts, and not a book by an apologist then reading the books is something of a distraction - if only Christians would spend as long on their knees as they do reading books (and don’t think I am talking to others and not myself here!)

I know why we so often avoid this spiritual imperative - it appears unproductive to pray, when we could be acquiring so much knowledge - but don’t you see that in so doing we deny the very power of God we seek to profess. If God is the creator of the universe, the all powerful, almighty, merciful and loving God of Scripture then how can we possibly spend so little time in communion with him when he is so near to us?

I love books and reading and might easily spend several hours reading a book on apologetics or some other Christian subject, but I find it much more difficult to spend an hour in prayer, and I will admit that I cannot think of a time I spent more than two hours in private prayer. John Wesley said he would not give a fig for the spirituality of a man who spent less then three hours in prayer each morning - how far we have sunk from such ideals.

Whilst we might rail against the words of Wesley as unrealistic, I believe his emphasis was right. He knew the power of prayer. Even though he never agreed with Calvinisms claims of irresistable grace, he knew that it was only through the Spirit of God that we would see the stirring of men’s hearts.

I long to see people saved, but I want more than this - I want to see revival, and we have been waiting a long time for it. It is only through our prayers that this will come about. No revival ever followed “apologetic debates”, and none ever will. Likewise there was never a revival that was not preceded by the earnest prayers of the elect.

• This point goes further still. Evangelism through our relationships only works if we live the lives we profess. No one ever sold a product they did not believe in, and we will never convince our friends and family of the urgent need for salvation if we do not live a life comensurate with that belief. Prayer is at the heart of this, because it is only through prayer that we have communion with God, be it prayer in public worship or private devotion. It is a matter of shame on the Church that Christians pray so little - what does this tell the outside world? Does it tell then we believe that the God of the Universe listens to us and cares for us?

A quote often (incorrectly) attributed to St Francis goes: “Preach the gospel at all times, use words if necessary”. The emphasis is right. Our words are a tiny part of our preaching of the gospel compared to our actions, and the praying Christian is an example worth many thousand apologists if they do not pray.

• Another point that comes to mind is that we can only preach the gospel to non Christians if we know non Christians. Willow Creek Community Church talk of “being intentional about your relationships”. Whether we agree with the systematic methods of that Church or not, they make a very important point: We must be careful to build friendships outside the Church as well as within, and we must realise that whenever we are with our non Christian friends that we are witnessing to them in all we do.

Most Christians, according to surveys carried out by Willow Creek and others, have virtually no non Christian friends, but make non Christian acquaintances throughout their life. I am fond of Chinese food, and usually frequent the same resteraunt. I now find myself on talking terms with the staff there and recently had the opportunity to invite one of the staff to Church. I must admit I was stunned when he agreed - moreso when he made it plain that he wanted to come regularly. I wonder how many similar opportunities such as this I have missed.

Someone asked me:

If, and I repeat, IF, one is saved by acknowledging Jesus is Lord, what does it matter what else we do?

The question is a good one, and one which is all too easily passed over or muddied by a poor understanding of what the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone truly implies.

The writer is right, that if you are indeed saved through your faith in Jesus Christ, our LORD, then it will in no way affect your salvation if you stay or leave your church. Nor will it affect your salvation if you manage to dot the “I”s and cross the “T”s in your doctrine, nor will it affect your salvation if you slip into error. If you have faith in Jesus Christ for your salvation, and him alone, then all of these things can never affect your salvation.

But what then is the place for right doctrine and right worship? The question begs another, much neglected question - one which is nevertheless found in most catechisms. What is the chief end of man? Why are we here? What is our purpose? The answer, as given by the catechisms, and indeed the Bible, is that we are here to glorify God and to enjoy his presence forever.

So the question of doctrine, teaching, worship and whatever else is one that is simply answered - none of these things affect our salvation, but they are far more important then that - they affect the glory given to God.

If I teach error about God then people will misunderstand him, and he will not be glorified. If I fail to worship God, or worship him incorrectly then I fail to ascribe to him the Glory which is his. If I preach error regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone then I place a stumbling block in the paths of those who might be saved, and as salvation glorifies God more then anything else, then again I fail to glorify him.

If I do not care about the glory of God, then what did my salvation mean anyway? This is where the modern day “profession of faith” can become shallow and unreliable. If all we ask from people is that they profess that Jesus Christ died for them and they want to be saved, then surely our emphasis is all wrong. If we emphasise only what we can get out of salvation then we have misunderstood what it is to call Jesus our Lord, and we have failed to see the magnitude of Christ’s work on the cross.

When we are concerned about the glory of God then the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone becomes a great comforting doctrine, as well as a great enabling doctrine (because it is only when we see that our works really gain us nothing with respect to salvation that we can do works from truly pure motives without self interest). Nevertheless it is not our main goal to be saved, but rather to bring glory to God the father, and Jesus Christ, his son, our LORD.

This is why it is important to read and understand all that God has told us in the Bible. David said “I have written your word within my heart that I might not sin against you”. He knew that when he sinned God is faithful and just to forgive those sins, but forgiveness was not enough - he wrote God’s word within his heart that he might not sin. He was concerned about God’s glory, that the name of God would be honoured and revered, not ridiculed.

Leonard Ravenhill wrote, regarding those bumper stickers: “Christians are not perfect, just forgiven” that “some backslider must have written that”. Quite right! It is not that Christians are perfect, but it is through the grace of God that we have power not to sin.

Glorify God. Don’t make excuses, but (in the words of Mary at Cana): “Whatever he says to you to do, do it.”

Keith Schooley has an interesting article on his blog about a new documentary (presumably released in the US as I have heard nothing about it here) about the supposed discovery of Jesus’ family tomb.

Keith argues for a presuppositional viewpoint - that clearly the claim must be false, because we know that the tomb was empty. On the other hand, his article links to Ben Witherington’s analysis which includes some very interesting comments looking at the claims in terms of actual likelihood, using among other things some statistical analysis.

The point is that this tomb is no more likely to belong to Jesus of Nazareth than the discovery of a grave in the UK of a William married to a Mary might indicate that this is the grave of William of Orange.

The problem is that these are common names.

But could we even entertain the possibility that this could be Jesus’ tomb? Should we do so?

Well clearly Keith has a point that we really shouldn’t bother. But how would we convince an atheist who presented this as evidence? Let us suppose that we felt it necessary to provide an answer to such a person, then apart from all the statistical evidence, we must also deal with both additional names that we know nothing about and the absence of others. We must also explain why the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is in Jerusalem, and with how the body of Christ that was known to have vanished managed to turn up, and then (if the disappearance were a hoax, why they saw fit to inscribe his name on an ossuarie).

But most of all, we know that the Jesus ossuarie was not actually found in this tomb! (and there is doubt about the inscription).

So really this whole story falls apart on close inspection (as described on the blogs I have linked to). Were an atheist to raise this argument, we could give it short shrift.

And that is a good thing, because when looking at the claims of Christianity, it is the ressurection of Jesus that is the "elephant in the room". Christ’s resurrection is central to Christianity both because of what it achieves, and because it is God’s affirmation of Christ’s ministry. It is central because it does not matter what evidence atheists bring to bear on the creation account, the old testament narratives or anything else: if Christ was raised from the dead then he is Lord indeed.

And it is central because there are no other plausible explanations for the events of the first century. How a world could be transformed by people willing to die for their belief in a God who had died in shame but risen again in glory.

So maybe we should discuss this family tomb, because it allows us to discuss the death and ressurection of Christ. And that can only be a good thing.

In My last post I spoke about preachers appealing to the Greek of a verse to make a point, but I used as my example 1 Corinthians 7 verse 1 (explaining the findings of Greek scholars including C K Barratt and Gordon Fee that the Greek term “to touch a woman” is idiomatic for “to have sexual relations”). What I did not do was provide an interpretation for this passage that makes sense of it armed with this knowledge.

So here is my view (which I think is quite clear once the idiom is understood).

The passage reads:

Now concerning the things about which you wrote, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Notice I have added some quotation marks. The Greek text has no quotation marks - they hadn’t been invented yet! So it is only conjecture, but I think it is a good one, that Paul immediately quoted from the letter that the Corinthians had sent to him.

He has dealt with many other issues in the preceding chapters - issues that had been reported to him. But now he turns to the Corinthian letter and he says:

“Now about the matters you wrote to me about. You said ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations’”.

And then he immediately answers this point “BUT because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife” and he goes on to say that husbands and wives should fulfill duties to one another.

So what is going on here?

It seems that some of the Corinthian Christians had come to the conclusion that sexual relations were not appropriate for Christians within marriage. One or other of a couple were advocating sexual fasting within marriage, and had written to Paul to commend this practice.

This interpretation fits with what we know of the Corinthian church. They were proud of their spirituality, whilst embracing practices that we would find astounding in today’s church. They also had a pre-gnostic theology that might have led them to disdain the flesh and thus God’s gifts within marriage.

We also know that some of them were sexually immoral, and it may be that part of the reason that there was sexual immorality in the Corinthian church was because one partner in a marriage was denying the other their “conjugal rights”.

So Paul’s prescription: He agrees that celibacy is a wonderful option, but argues that where couples are married, to avoid the temptation to immorality, they should not deny their partners (except perhaps for short periods, when devoting themselves to prayer).

Read the passage again with this interpretation in mind, and I think you will agree that it makes much more sense than the NIV’s interpretation that Paul is talking about marriage.

(Incidentally, the passage quoted above is taken from the NASB, which is a literal translation. The RSV and AV (KJV) which are also literal translations, read almost identically.