We have moved to www.theprognosis.org

Cards on the table, we're talking about the cross and the models there of.

One of the things as a younger Christian I couldn't understand was how different people could talk about the cross in such different ways. What was worrying to me was that when ever people spoke about it I tended to agree, even when it seemed to go against that which I already knew.

Let me explain, one week I'd be convinced by preacher that the cross was about God demonstrating his love for us. He'd quote scripture, use illustrations etc. and I'd think to myself, "Yeah, that's true. The cross really does show us how much God loves us. Good News Indeed!" (I was, still am, a bit of a nerd.) Then the next week say, some form of travelling band man would say about how the cross was God's way of setting us free (that's liberty by the way) free from the fear of death, free from the chains of sin etc. and again I'd find myself saying, "Go Spell!" Then the next week I'd be speaking t o some person handing out fliers on the street and they'd explain in detail to me how Jesus death on the cross payed a price, not to the devil, but to God for the wrong I'd done against Him by breaking His law. "Lucky I got Jesus." I'd go away thinking.

And then I'd ask myself the question, "Am I really so easily swayed, do I just believe the last thing I've been told?" I quickly realised that no, I don't. 

The reason that all three 'models' of the cross had been so easy for me to accept is because they were all true. All backed up by large amounts of scripture and that common sense filter my brain runs everything through. The cross was about Love, demonstrating God's Love for us and an example of how we should love others. In a sense that's what the cross does for us. The cross was about Law, paying off the debt we have against the law. IN a sense that's what the cross does for God. The cross was about Liberty, freeing us from the fear we might have of death, the power of sin and the devil. In a sense that's what the cross does to the devil.

I wasn't simply 'easily swayed' but convinced by the truth of scripture. The cross was, and IS, all of these things...and more! When I realised this...BOOM...the top of my head almost came off. The cross has accomplished so much!

Something we love to talk about here on proGnosis is the atonement, that fits nicely into my 'law' category. It's vital that we don't forget this one because without it, we're stuffed. We can know all we want about God's love, but unless we're rescued, we're stuffed. We can know all we want about being freed from the chains of sin, but unless previous sin is dealt with, we're stuffed. That's why we emphasise it so much, because it is crucial!!! Hopefully we wont react so far the other way that we forget the Love and the Liberty bits.

But there IS a problem with focusing on just Love, or just Liberty.

Those who speak about becoming a Christian as an opportunity to 'live the best life you can live!' really miss the point, we have all sinned and fall short of the standard God expects from us. Those who speak about 'cuddling up to Jesus at nap time' really miss the point, because God does NOT love filthy retched sinners who can do nothing about their sin.

I think the real problem with both groups is that in a very large sense, they are right! Scripture backs them. But when we allow it to limit our thinking we shut out so much more scripture, we chuck it on the scrap heap because it doesn't feel right to us.

The trend at the moment is to say the Cross just shows us God's love because if it actually fulfills some 'punishment' function then it's evil and cruel to the poor victim Jesus. So lets suppose the Cross is illustrative rather than constitutive, that the cross was a chance for God to just show us his love but doesn't really achieve anything. Then isn’t it even more cruel? Isn't it even MORE evil and twisted? Why would God put Jesus through such pain, such agony, such humiliation just to show us something?

What it boils down to is a misunderstanding of ALOT of things, authority of Scripture, Jesus choice in the matter, our own sin, God's justice...the list goes on. My plea? Celebrate the cross for ALL it has done for us! Don't box it in, don't limit it, let's spend our time finding out more and more about what Jesus did on that historic day!

Believe it or not - I don't want to offend you. Honestly. In fact, I hate offending people. When I see a tear come to the corner of an eye, or a look that says ‘I really didn't think you'd say that - that's crushed me', I feel sick in my stomach. Yet, when I preach I can end up offending people without trying.

This Sunday was a classic case in point. I was preaching on Boaz and Ruth getting together and noted that they were both believers, and so took the opportunity to show the bigger Biblical picture on the need to marry fellow believers (as this is a persistent problem in the local church). Although this is one of the simplest and clearest Biblical doctrines it is very unpopular in a church (and I mean the church in the West) where the majority of believers are women, and the majority of men are wet. In teaching the Bible faithfully on this matter I am saying two things to women in mixed relationships:

1. The relationship you are in is wrong and to marry them would be to rebel against God.
2. You may never find a husband.

That is more crushing and paralyzing that most of what I preach on a Sunday.

And so at the end of the sermon I felt like an assassin. I felt weak, harsh and low. In fact it was a prefect opportunity for Satan to do his post sermon attack.

And then came the blow, a lady came to me and said ‘YOU really offended so and so'. As I listened and tried not to react, a simple thought came to me, ‘I didn't offend - the Bible offended.'

It would be so easy to give up teaching hard doctrines and give people what their itching ears want to hear. But if I did that I would be unfaithful to God, mishandle the Word, be an ashamed workman, and lead my people into sin.

Pray that I, others and you may stay true to the Word of God and never waver as we hold out the Word of truth in a crooked and depraved generation.

A little while ago, when we were all going on a bit of Steve Chalke bender, I suggested that his primary issue in the way he understands penal substitution was to do with his understanding of who Jesus is. Today I thought about that again, as I was reading a proper tidy book called 'The Work of Christ' by Bob Letham.

The opening chapter of the book is taken up with the necessity of Christ's being both God and man; "A less than human Christ could no more be the saviour of human beings than a less than divine Christ could no more be the true revelation of God" (pg. 25). Letham makes his point historically by whizzing (do I need a 'h' there?) us through 2000 years of how Christ's nature was understood, from the the early days of people thinking he was a little bit less man, right through to the post Enlightenment's thinking that he was a lot less God.

It was toward the end of this section that he writes something that's been a real help to me understanding the whole Catholic/Mary thing. I've never really gotten it see... Where exactly does the Bible even give a hint that Mary is the mediator we need to get to God?

It doesn't - but here's Letham's take on how it came about. And once again, it's a Christological issue;

"...where the incarnation, although held to be true, is nonetheless not given adequate theological weight, the link between Christ and humanity is eroded... Christ was viewed in his supreme deity and comman nature was neglected. Consequently, the need arose for some additional form of human mediation between us and the exalted Christ..."

Enter, stage right, Mary.

Well known words, these...

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more...

But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;

Life, for Hamlet is shot. Dad's dead, probably killed by Uncle Claudius, who not only is now King of Denmark, but has also managed to bag himself a ready made queen, Ham's mum.

Watching his mum snog his uncle is enough to make the poor boy go mad, which he promptly does (or does he? [I think that's what my teacher was driving at, at least]).

Either way, Hamlet wants to be dead. He cannot see any reason to stay alive any longer. Life could not get any worse. But there's just one thing stopping him; he is terrified of death. Absolutely, horrifically, terrified of it. Even though life is crud, the fact that death is so unknown (the undiscover'd country bit) leaves him unable to choose. For Hamlet, life or death is a lose/lose choice. 'If I live, life is rubbish; but if I die... who knows what comes next?' So he can't choose - the choice was just too hard.

When Paul wrote to the Philippians, he was balancing a similar choice, but he seems to be able to do it in a little bit more of a ‘glass half empty way’ - Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. 

So why are both of them asking the same question in such different ways? Is it just that Paul is one of those terrible 'eternal optimists' and that Hamlet is just a sixth former who listens to too much Radiohead, or is there more too it? 

The reason why death for Paul is not going to be hit and hope is because he's got a certainty of something better – something even better than living for Christ in this world – it’s living with Christ, fully, perfectly, undistractedly, in the next. Paul’s talking about his ‘deliverance’, his going to be with Jesus, as soon as his life is up. It’s not just his wish, it’s his ‘eager expectation and hope’.

He’s so certain of it, that he can almost taste it. So whatever happens to him, it won’t change the glory ahead. He’s so in love with what Christ has promised him in the future, even the ‘now’, prison and all, is in terms of the glory of Christ that’s ahead. For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain... because he knows he’ll gain Christ.

It’s total win/win. I live – I get Christ. I die – I get Christ.

For Hamlet? Life sucks, death sucks.

Jesus is the difference.

I 've been thinking quite a lot about a key event in history recently. An event of such proportions that had it happened slightly differently, the modern world would be a vastly different place.

What got me going down this train of thought was a chance viewing of the BBC's 'Luther' drama-documentary, concerning the life and times of Martin Luther, the man who stood up against the world. It was a fairly balanced documentary in some ways, and somehow managed to capture something of the spirit of the age in which Luther lived.

 Now if you've turned up on this page looking for the civil rights campagner, sorry. You've got the wrong guy, but keep reading, because the bravery of this Martin was possibly even greater than that of the political activist.

Anyway, to continue, one particular flash of brilliance which caught my eye in this man's life, was that great showdown at the Diet of Worms, so often portrayed as the flashpoint of the reformation. (incidentally, for those MLK fans who are still perservering here, a Diet was a political council of rulers and dignitaries, and Worms is a place. this is not some obscure, New Age weight loss plan.)

One cannot quite imagine what was going through Luther's mind as he determined whether to respond to Charles V's demand that he attend.  A comparison with the Garden of Gethsemane would be inaccurate, as the two are beyond comparing, however the weight of responsibility which Luther bore, must have felt similar to him. To live or to die, was surely his dilemma. To stand up to kings, princes, authorities, an Emporer, a Pope, or to live a quiet life, were his only options. To speak the truth of the Word of God, or to ignore the Word of God, were perhaps the only two avenues he could see.

The most important and far reaching decision which Luther made, was not to say 'I will not recant', but that initial decision to attend the Diet. He knew what awaited him, he knew the church's demand that he recant many of his writings, he was all to aware of the powers that would be at this Diet, some cruel, some fair. Yet still, against the advice of his friends, Luther set off on that long journey across Germany, knowing in his heart that he would not recant, that he would rather please God than man.

Here I stand, I can do no other. Those famous words attributed to Luther, were surely cast in stone long before the Diet. But what a stand to make, here I stand, on the truth and seeking the will of God. Here I stand, resisting the temptation of an easy life. Here I stand,  my life is not my own, it belongs to Jesus Christ, I can do no other.

Recently, benefiting from the discovery of "On Demand" on our basic TV service from Virgin, I discovered the TV series by the BBC called, "Tribe". Sucked in, I ended up watching the whole of the first series, only to discover that a third series was due to arrive on BBC two, now showing every Tuesday at 9:00pm. There's this guy called Bruce Parry, a very English ex-marine, who now goes around and integrates himself into various different tribes for a month at a time. He is exposed to and often takes part in every aspect of the tribe's life, from hunting to fighting; sacrifice to crazy drug trips; social activities and festivals to projectile vomiting; local comedy to cannibalism!

It's a very interesting anthropological, sociological and ethnographical experiment that allows you to see some cultures and societies that are so far removed from our own and chances are that you'll never experience. Here are a few of my reflections on the programme

1. Humanism is not the answer for humankind
Many of these tribes have a great life. Ok, so some of them work incredibly hard and spend every moment of their lives surviving. But most of them seem to spend so much time chilling out and hanging out with friends and family and then when they get a bit hungry they just go off and hunt and then eat some roast warthog or something! Forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't humanism and all that enlightenment stuff, with all it's potential for technological advancement, promise that it would make our lives better. Weren't computers and robots and stuff supposed to do the work for us so that we could chill out and hang out? But then these Tribes obviously don't have the answer to humanity's problems since many of them are desperate to get their hands on the technology that the 'West' has.

2. Christianity has been badly integrated into culture
When Bruce encounters Christianity of any description, he is often very negative. And often you can understand why. Often Christianity has been so badly integrated into the cultures that it has come to. Christianity is not a culture and so when it is accepted and followed it should be adapted to a culture. Instead what is often seen is Christianity with some Westernization. The exception is in the one last Tuesday with the Anuta people. The whole Island was 'Christian' and yet they still kept their essential Anuta-ness. So they had their different welcoming rituals and festivals and things but also 'did Church'!

3. Most faiths seek for a god to favour them
Almost all the tribes had in common that they made some sort of sacrifice or ritual to please a god or spirit so that they would have a successful hunt or a successful harvest. They all expected a god to be able to give them prosperity and hoped that when they did these things, that would be the case. This sounds very much like the prosperity teaching that exists in certain branches of Christianity. But here's the difference: the tribes hoped for something that they didn't think that they deserved whereas the prosperity gospel expects something that they think they have a right to. In Western culture we think we have a right to life and health and when someone dies under the age of 75 or when someone is ill, then we think it is an invasion of our rights as humans. So the prosperity gospel is not a return to an authentic understanding of God but a Western warping of God.

Often when we're faced with something other than our norm, it helps us understand our own norm. Looking at these different cultures with different religions helps understand our own culture and religion, in part of course. It's well worth a watch, it's entertaining and exciting, and hey, you might learn something!