We have moved to www.theprognosis.org

In Ephesians chapter 1 we learn about our objective status in Christ. We are chosen, predestined, adopted, redeemed, forgiven and given the Holy Spirit. In Ephesians chapter 2 we learn how this was achieved (verses 4-8….it was achieved by Jesus). Very clear, and we all agree.

However, our personal, subjective experience is of a Roller coaster ride. That is reflected in the Psalms, particularly the Psalms of Lament. But as we have all agreed - the subjective experience never changes the objective truth. It is a merely a subjective experience - one which no honest person can argue against existing. We are living in a fallen world, in fallen bodies with a ‘yet and yet to come tension.’

But when you look at Paul’s prayer in Ephesians you see an interesting request. In 1:17 Paul prays for those who stand in the objective truth of union with Christ that ‘you may know him (God) better.’ In his second prayer in chapter 3, which was written after the objective truth in chapter 2 he requests that we have Christ dwell in our hearts, that we would grasp more of his love and that we would be filled.

It would seem to me that we can know God more, that we can have Christ dwell in our hearts more, and that according to chapter 4 and 5 we can both grieve the Holy Spirit and be filled by him.

My point? My final point in this series? My third thought on closeness?

Although the phrase ‘closeness to Christ’ may be misleading at points, and although our illustrations are all flawed (and praise be to God that we do not interpret Jesus’ illustrations/ parables in the same way we interpret each others! Can you imagine treating the parable of the lost sheep in the same way as we treated Mr Raines illustration? ‘Sorry Jesus, but are you saying that God doesn’t care for the 99? Naughty boy…’).

Ultimately Paul teaches that we can know God more, that Christ can dwell (rule) in our lives more richly and that our experience and standing with the Holy Spirit can change (although we can never be left by the Holy Spirit (1:13 and 14).

Jude encourages us to ‘keep yourself in God’s love’ (Jude 21…not sure which chapter, you’ll have to look it up).

What about Jesus? He says in John 15 that we can ‘remain’ in his love if we obey his commands.

You see, nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus (Romans and we all face different experiences of that love (Psalm 42), but we can also be ‘closer’ to God within that absolute/ objective status. Don Carson says, ‘God’s love is sometimes said to be directed toward his own people in a provisional or conditional way - conditional, that is, on obedience.’

I believe our obedience to Christ can change our closeness (within the objective - and beyond the subjective).

• If we are bitter and angry we can grieve the Holy Spirit - yet if we feast on the Bible and thirst for him we can be filled (Ephesians 4 and 5)
• We can have Christ be more at home in our lives when we obey him more (Ephesians 3 and Colossians 3:16 - check out the Message rendering)
• And we can remain in his love if we follow Christ’s commands (John 15)

I want to rejoice in the objective truth of the cross. I want to learn to ignore my subjective feelings. But I need to be aware that me behaviour does matter, and that God’s desire is that I obey him.

Wow, that was a BIG discussion. And this will be a BIG Blog - sorry.

Ok, as the little tortoise I will slowly plod on….

Let me start with a little point in response to the ‘hare’ comments.

A little point: It has been pointed out that ‘closeness’ is not a Biblical term. Interesting. Anybody own a concordance? Proverbs 18:24 says that there is a ‘friend who sticks CLOSER than a brother.’ That’s Jesus. That is our objective position in Christ in which we now stand (Romans 5:1,2 and 6:3-11).

To argue against using the term ‘closeness’ is like banning the word Trinity. It is not in the Bible but works as handy term to encompass great Biblical teaching. But you are correct in asserting that the term ‘closeness’ is not clearly defined within theological speak, and so we need to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Just to be a pain, I am talking about THREE things (well, I’ve got to be a pain…). The first was our objective closeness in Christ through our union with Him by His propitiatory death on the cross.

In this blog I want to look at the second sense - subjective closeness to Christ. That is, how we physically feel in relation to Jesus. Now the Bible actually has LOADS to say about this. Just have a read through the book of Psalms and you are encountered with a whole host of differing experiences. Check out Psalm 42:1 - the Psalmist is thirsting for God. Why? Because God feels distant. But then look at Psalm 139 and it is just bursting with the feel of being ‘close’ to God.

What about the New Testament? Check out the term ‘near’ in Hebrews to see this objective/ subjective issue.

Biblically, we will feel closer to God at some times more than others. However, that NEVER changes the first truth - that we are always close to Christ objectively through the cross.

So, why do we have this subjective change?

• We live in flesh (AV understanding)
• We live in a fallen world and all its distractions
• We may be sinning
• We may have grieved the Holy Spirit
• God may be letting us feel that way to help us grow to trust Him more.

One preacher put it like this (maybe Geoff Thomas - but he probably stole / borrowed it). With a new born baby a parent has to touch/ cuddle them every time they cry so that the child knows they are there. However, if that was to continue through into adulthood then the person would be abnormal. Learning to trust the parent is there without them touching/ cuddling you is part of maturity. They need to learn that the parent is there for them even when they do not feel them.

We too need to learn to trust that God is there in the objective sense even when we can’t feel him in the subjective sense (See Psalm 43:2 for an example) - that is an aspect of Spiritual maturity.

It is always sad to see a Christian question God’s goodness or faithfulness because they cannot subjectively feel Him. They need to look to their objective position in Christ.

But it is also sad to see Christians deny a subjective experience with Christ because they fear all things ‘charismatic’. Just read the original Welsh Methodist, or some of the great reformed Hymn writers. They felt God.

Don’t we want to experience both of these? The security of objective closeness and the encouragement of subjective closeness? That is what a true Experiential Biblical Calvinist does.

Ok, here goes an attempt to answer the current debate: How do you quantify closeness to Christ?
Is it subjective or objective? Is it a fairly constant gradient or a continualy changing state? Is it based on understanding, emotion, obedience or personal communion? Is is actually something we can aware of?
On an objective level we are always one with Christ and therefore as close as we can get.
Yet on a subjective level, I sometimes feel Christ in a physical and emotional form.
However, there have been times when I have not felt Christ but in looking back over that period I can see that Christ was closer than I could have imagined.
There have been times when I thought I was doing something for Christ and felt a real ‘burden’/ ‘vision’ / righteous anger, and then found out I was being a donkey and it had more to do with pride/ stupidity / bad theology than Christ.
Actually, I haven’t got a simple answer, but let me take a few blogs to unpack it. (We’ll start obvious and basic to make sure we are not ‘assumed evangelicals’)
Point 1: We are always close to Christ because our relationship is based on the cross.
More next time…
(Hold off on the attacks … I will unpack it more)

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.

As a church we have a 2 week mission going on at the moment in partnership with UCCF. A team of students have come down to help us run . During this week they have been doing questionnaires in the local ‘big day out’, handing out flyers, taking assemblies and classes in the local comprehensive schools, and running a ‘big brother’ rip-off youth event. To be fair, they are doing a great job. Actually, an amazing job.

As the mission progresses I want to make some observations:

1. We have religious freedom. It’s true. We can go and share Jesus in the public and in schools. Last night we used the local coffee shop to debate Dawkins’ delusion (conclusion: Dawkins is the deluded one), and people came to listen and debate. So often Christians say that we must be careful what we say and keep it down - I agree we should be wise and gracious - but we must never self - censor.
2. The next generation really are Post-moderns. The hardest part of the school lessons was that the children had next to no ability to use logic. In fact, they didn’t even grasp antithesis. For them empirical evidence and reasoned logic had no place in a discussion about Jesus. But a very wise teacher said to us, ‘Well, if I didn’t believe in the Holy Spirit I’d just give up - but thankfully He can get through anything.’ Even Post modernism!
3. My church believe in evangelism! Last night was such a joy to see 30 regulars turn up to welcome guests and then chat to them afterwards. They made me proud to be there pastor (if that’s allowed?).

More to follow.

Praise God for this great mission He’s given us!

Monday night saw us have our first Prognosis team meeting. We met in a dodgy Indian just outside Porthcawl and ended up in Clewers’ very reformed study. I must be honest, it was one of the funniest evenings I have been a part of for a very long time. Lewis and Sammy just wind each other up, and the rest of us just hold on for dear life. I did feel rather old as the four young pups wore their silly t-shirts and had crazy hair styles (well, Lewis hasn’t got much… actually, only Jonny has stupid hair…), and all struggled to hold their folks due to the repetitive strain injury caused by playing 12 hours of computer games a day.

We met to discuss the future of Prognosis and have come up with the following plans that will come to life at the end of August:

- Create a great web site

- Have our blog as the home page

- Make our blog’s shorter and more regular

- Write more in-depth articles

- Create video interviews

- Post audio sermons

- Have a Welsh language multi media section

Over the summer we will be ‘stock piling’ articles, audio, video and Welsh language material and will put it up in time for the new term.

Watch out: the Prognosis website is coming to a computer near you!

As an undergraduate I loved studying church history. As an assistant Pastor I was mentored by Kevin Adams who also loved church history and encouraged me to read and apply it to my ministry. I love church history.

But I also love thinking about how people will look at our generation in the years to come. What will the students of WEST be taught about Western Evangelicalism at the turn of the Millennium in 2207?? What would their study of source materials (Blogs more than books) tell them about our passions and struggles? What heresies will they be able to see that snuck into our church under the cover of night?

10 years ago I thought they would have a module in historic pneumatology called ‘The Toronto Blessing: Laughter, Lying or Lord?’.

Five years ago I was convinced there would have been a module in the Doctrine of God called ‘The omission of ‘omni’: the day God lost His mind in the openness of God debate.’ At the same time I was worried that we would have a module called ‘The rise of fusion and the fall of united and effective witness on Campus’.

However, all three issues: the Toronto blessing (so-called), open theism, and the alleged rise of Fusion have come and gone (even if a handful of die-hards try to keep the flames alive).

But I believe with all my heart - and wish it were not so - that there will be a module called ‘the atonement controversy at the turn of the millennium’. In fact, there may even be a module called ‘the split of Evangelicalism and the rise of neo-liberal Evangelicalism’ which will be marked by a rejection of penal substitution and therefore a necessary rejection of the authority of Scripture, the character of God, Biblical counselling, and mission.

I truly believe that the ultimate defining moment of our generation is not our embrace of new songs, the rise of house churches, our pneumatology, or even our search for a biblical model of social action. No, the one thing that our generation will be known for and held accountable for is our handling of the debate over penal substitution. EA have dropped the ball, so has Spring Harvest and Christianity magazine. EA have debated and made a statement - but they have not made a clear and defining stand. They have not led us as our forefathers have. Spring Harvest and Christianity magazine (probably the biggest influence on the more left field evangelicals) have embraced Britain’s popularist of the rejection of penal substitution (Steve Chalke) and given him a legitimacy and platform.

A bit of church history: Let me quote a very academic source (Wikipedia!);

‘In the summer term of 1910 an evangelical student called Norman Grubb of Trinity College, Cambridge and a friend, met with ten representatives of the Student Christian Movement to discuss their concerns that SCM was promoting an overly liberal view of Christianity in the British universities. Grubb posed the direct question, “Does the Student Christian Movement put the atoning blood of Christ central in its teaching?” After a little deliberation the answer came, “We acknowledge it, but it is not central.”

Grubb and his friends at Cambridge decided that they could no longer work in partnership with the SCM saying that it had divorced a biblically-based, cross-centred emphasis. They began the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union (CICCU). Soon, their contemporaries at Oxford did the same, and new Christian Unions (CUs) began to spring up in a number of universities over country.’

That was the start of UCCF.

They took a stand on the Cross. They did what we and every generation must do;

-Define the Cross - make sure we have a full and Biblical view.

-Declare the Cross - ensure that all have the opportunity to embrace and love it.

-Defend the Cross - this is our non negotiable. It is not an optional or secondary doctrine.

 

Men and women, we MUST make sure that we understand the Cross (Define), we must then share it with non Christians for their salvation and with Christians for their sanctification and joy (Declare), we must also make sure that our generation and the generation to come are not taken captive by the heresy that is circulating contemporary evangelicalism (Defend).

 

Please meditate on the following:

Isaiah 52:13-53:12

2 Corinthians 5:21

1 Peter 2:21-25

1 Corinthians 15:1-8

Galatians 1:6-9 - With a heavy heart I say that this undermining of penal substitution is another gospel. And Paul is clear on how we are to respond to it.

 

Let us do all we can to make sure that the students of WEST look at our generation with admiration as we stand against this tide of heresy. Is there a new Norman Grubb out there? Will someone stand as Luther did?

This is our defining moment.

Stand!

So, I’ve gone away on holiday. Easy. I’m in glorious Nottingham (ish) with my in-laws, and next week we’ll go to a little cottage in Newcastle Emlyn. My aim? To spend quality time with my lovely wife, read books and watch some sermons on my iPod. My wife is very easy to spend time with and I love reading – so this should be a no-brainer.

But there is a problem.

I have too much to read and watch/listen to – much too much. One thing I love about being a Pastor is the ability to spend so much time reading and listening to sermons. But there is always more to take in than time to take it in.

Many non-pastors say that they wish they could study as much but they don’t have the time. But whilst I see that they cannot read during work time (unless they work in a very relaxed environment) I cannot understand why they do not read so much on their days off and holidays. Could it be that they are not disciplined? You see, I and other pastors have to arrange our own time. We do not have anyone looking over our shoulders or putting work on our desks. Also, we cannot go to a church twice/ three times a week and be spoon fed from the Bible – as we are doing the spoon feeding. Therefore we must discipline ourselves to seek out teaching, rebuking, correcting and teaching every week. Because unless I am growing spiritually and being amazed at the scriptures day in day out – I will have nothing to offer my people when I stand up front.

Because of this I dedicate one day off a week and at least a third of each holiday to reading and studying. And do you know what? I LOVE it! This morning I started the new book ‘pierced for our transgressions’ and was nearly bouncing off my chair with excitement when I read their explanation and application of Exodus 12. Then I moved onto John Piper ‘Future grace’ and my heart felt strangely warmed as I read and re-read the fact that I am saved by grace and I will be kept by grace. To see that Christ’s grace is sufficient for today, tomorrow, next week, and all the way into glory was a real encouragement –particularly for a natural worrier like myself. Then I spent some time looking at the ‘reformation study Bible (ESV)’ and really enjoyed it.

But it only gets better. I put my iPod on and started listening to ‘songs for the cross centred life’ (SGM) and had all these great truths applied not only to my head but to my heart.

Do you know what? It’s not even midday! What a privilege!

Why do I write this?

1. If you are a Pastor – make sure all your ministry comes out of rest. Make sure you take time to read for readings sake – ensure that you are excited about God and glory in Him on your own Sabbaths.

2. If you are not a pastor – don’t use that as an excuse to be lazy when it comes to the spiritual disciplines. Just set aside 1 to 2 hours a week (that means giving up Neighbours or surfing the internet –where you only end up in porn anyway!) to read and grow.

3. If you are going on holiday soon – get one of the books I’ve mentioned and a great praise album. Sit down and spend time with God. Feed you soul. Delight in the creator. Enjoy your master!

The only frustrating thing is that I have no idea how to put pictures up of the books without Sammy! Any help?

According to Oxford University’s professor for the public understanding of Science, Richard Dawkins, I and all other theists (those who believe in a divine being) are deluded.

I wonder, do you think that theists are deluded? Do you wonder whether religion is mass delusion?

Richard Dawkins is convinced of this and is on a mission.

Why has he written this book?

To turn theists into atheists (see page 5)

What a challenge. His aim is illume the deluded. As you read you can see that Dawkins has strong feelings against theists and religion. In fact, this book is based on his 2 part TV series on religion called ‘the root of all evil’ - a title that says it all.

And he writes with passion as he tries to convince us that religion is evil, violent and based on a delusion.

So, has Dawkins succeeded? Has he created an army of new atheists? Well, a friend whom I email on this subject is himself an atheist and finds this book compelling and encouraging. In fact he feels like his belief in atheism is confirmed with every page. Maybe you find that too.

However, some people have been amazed at how weak and shallow some of his argument is. Actually some scholars (such as Alistair McGrath and Peter Williams) would claim that there is far more rhetoric than substance. I’m sure that Dawkins is very clever in his field of evolutionary biology. But in the realm of religion and philosophy in which we find him writing here, he is at the very least an amateur.

Indeed in the London Book of Reviews you can read;

‘Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology’

In fact, in a book club where I was debating this book highly qualified professor came (who was not a Christian) and said publicly that scientifically Dawkins was ‘arrogant and ignorant’.

Let me tell you some weaknesses with his approach:

-He cites typical examples that are just not typical. That is, he uses the pathological as if they were normal. At some points you would wonder whether this book is grounds for inciting religious hatred. Just look at pages 23 and 25

-He lumps too many religions together. He says that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same belief in God. (p37)

-He does not quote contemporary arguments. But rather tends to rely on medieval theologians.

-He even invents scientific data: Look at Pages 170 and 194 -it’s rather funny.

-Sometimes he doesn’t quote at all on a subject, particularly in the first part of chapter 3 on the cosmological argument.

How would you feel if I dealt with this book but never quoted it? That is not academically vigorous and smells of a weakness in argument.

-Indeed he prefers to create imaginary opponents. Try out page 132 , an imaginary apologist on page 230, and an imaginary moral philosopher on page 293.

I find that very insulting. It is the classic straw man argument. Put a corrupted and easily defeated set of words into mouth of your opponent and you’ll knock them down with a single intellectual breath.

But that is not good academic study.

Let me deal with 2 of Dawkins areas: Religion and God.

1. What’s wrong with religion?

Religion causes violence.

In fact it is a dysfunctional meme - a virus that has been passed on according to Dawkins. I find Dawkins inventing theory after theory to deal with religious phenomenon.

 

But let’s deal with the ‘religion is evil’ and the world would be a better place without it.

Would it?

Unfortunately religion has caused much pain. But this is not so much the fault of God as human kind who war over anything.

There seems to be some thing in that wants to fight. This is where the Bible starts - we have rebelled against God. Just read Roman 3.

But what about atheists - no violence? Between 1918 and 1941 the soviet union communist party destroyed 90% of church building and executed 90% of their pastors. Was that a good thing?

It would be fair to say that Dawkins wants religion gone. He only see’s the problems like war and division - but none of the good:

-Hospitals

-Science

-Education

-Aid

-Culture

-Hope

But we must understand that religion is very much man’s invention and something that he uses for his own gain.

Just because Italian supporters kill police men doesn’t mean that the football clubs don’t exist and it doesn’t mean that the football players themselves encourage the murder.

No, people just want to fight because we are far away from God - and people use God as an excuse for violence.

You see religion is pretty evil - but Christianity is a faith. It is about the true God who came to earth to give us new life.

2. Why there is almost certainly is a God

Dawkins writes this sentence that sums up his thesis:

‘there is no evidence to favour the God hypotheses’

He starts off with his classic arguments, and the typical arguments of the teenage play ground:

God is like Santa

That is, people grow out of believing in him. But that is not a fair analogy as people don’t start believing in Santa again when they are 18, 40 or 65.

We would like God to exist

Of course we would! But I would also like to have a wife - but just because I want her does not mean that she doesn’t exist.

Come on Dawkins - use some sensible arguments!

There are many arguments for the existence of God:

• Creation needs a creator
• Design demands a designer
• Morality is universal
• Spiritual quest
• First mover
• Ontological
• Jesus claimed to be God and rose again to prove it.

On their own they prove little, but together they are compelling.

Dawkins hypothesis in a nut shell is that God does not exist and religion is evil. He says that those who believe in the God hypothesis are deluded. As the facts are stacked against them

I believe that it is the reverse. I see the overwhelming evidence being stacked against the atheist hypothesis. In fact, I would go so far as to say that at some points Dawkins has lost his rational thought. Let me tell you about the saddest and coldest part of the book. It comes on page 137. Recalling a lecture in Dublin he states clearly that it is worse to be brought up in a Catholic family than to be sexually abused. Did you read that right? Dawkins would rather someone by sexually abused that brought up in a theistic home.

On page 108 he says:

‘people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true’

I would say that is true of Dawkins here.

I am sure you will agree that he is demonstrating here that it is not academic study that is driving him - but something else.

That is not the writing of a rational man.

After reading that I was no longer angry at Dawkins, I simply felt sorry for him.

Let me be clear:

Theism is not a delusion as it is not something which stands against the face evidence. Actually, when we look at the proof we can see that a belief in God is not only rational - it is vital.

God has revealed Himself to you and He wants to know you.

I believe that to say there is not God in the face of all evidence is to delude yourself. It is equal to trying to prove there is no air.

About a decade ago I met a female Christian worker who had a favourite, stock phrase. Whenever a question was raised, a problem posed or a discussion held she would always come in with the same phrase. And that really annoyed me. I just thought she was avoiding the topic. It’s rather funny as I look back to some discussions where I tried to disagree with her and just ended up looking like a complete Balaam’s donkey. Why? What was the ‘stock’ phrase that she kept using? Here goes: ‘It’s all about the gospel’. Ah! It really annoyed me. Let me illustrate:

• I know a girl struggling with self image issues. Answer? ‘It’s all about the gospel’
• I’m chatting to a student who’s having a hard time believing God loves him. Answer? ‘It’s all about the gospel’
• I’ve got bad athlete’s foot. Answer? ‘It’s all about the gospel’ (that’s not true. But I did wonder what she would say)

Wouldn’t that annoy you?

But over the last 10 years I have had to admit that I was wrong and she was right (Don’t you hate it when that happens? It get’s really bad when you are married!). You see, I completely misunderstood what she meant by the term ‘gospel’. I was taught that the gospel was as simple as ABC. ADMIT you have sinned. BELIEVE that Jesus died on the cross for your sins. COMMIT yourself to living for Him.

To me the gospel was just a process you went through to become a Christian. If you wanted to go to heaven not hell - then you needed the gospel. If you wanted to be forgiven for your sins - then you needed the gospel. But that was it. As soon as you had become a Christian the gospel had done its job. Jesus died to pay the price for our sins. Once you accept that and are born again - job done.

I had nearly missed the point of the gospel. You see, the gospel is not merely a set of truth propositions that give you a 3 step guide to becoming a member of God’s family. Rather, according to Mark 1:1, Jesus is the gospel. He is the good news. And when you study Ephesians 2:1-10 you see that He has saved us from death to life, and it was through grace, but he has saved us for a new life - a life of good works. So the gospel is not just about becoming a Christian, it is about BEING a Christian.

When you become a Christian you are made 1 with Jesus. You are united (to learn more about this download Edward Donnelly preaching on ‘Union with Christ’ from the Evangelical Movement of Wales web site -it’ll change your life). So now my identity is tied up in who Jesus is. He not only paid my debt on the cross, He gave me His righteousness too. So now I am literally (although I am not allowed to use that word according to the March 07 edition of the Briefing) clothed in Christ.

So let’s go through those questions again:

• I know a girl struggling with self image issues. Answer?

It’s all about the gospel because Jesus loved you before the creation of the world, before the onslaught of zits and before you read the last edition of cosmopolitan and decided that size 8 is the new size 10. You see, although rubbish Christian boys say they will love you if you look like the porn they sneakily look at - Jesus just simply loves you. Full stop. End of question. He loves you. And what does He do to prove that love? Take you down the bowling alley in his Ford KA and treat you to a Pizza Hut? No. He came to earth to be one of us, giving up all his worship and glory in heaven, and then dies on the cross in cruel physical agony, and more importantly, in separation from the Father as a substitute for your sin. Jesus died for you. That’s how much He loves you. And he wants you to live for Him in the most amazing mission of all history - being light in the darkness. So look to Jesus ‘the gospel’ for your self image, self worth and self respect - not backslidden ‘Christian’ boys who’ll end up breaking your heart anyway (sorry lads…).

• I’m chatting to a student who’s having a hard time believing God loves him.

Answer?

It’s all about the gospel. You see, we live in a world where we have to earn everything. You earn your place on the rugby team, you earn your place in uni and you earn the respect of your mates and work colleagues. Do you want a pay rise? Work hard. Do you want to get into a choir? Practice hard. We have all been brought up on Saving Private Ryan and hear those crippling words ‘earn it, earn it’. So when it comes to our faith, if we are not living a perfect life - we doubt we are a Christian at all. Surely God can’t love me? Not the way I am! But He can. Not because he is a wimp dad in the sky who just laughs at his son as he mocks him publicly. No, because God put His wrath for our sins on Christ. Jesus has paid the price. He has united us to Christ. We have been forgiven and adopted into God’s family because of Jesus. Nothing can change that. Therefore we should not doubt whether God loves us, as a Historical act (the cross) proves He does. And we should not feel as though we have to earn God’s love as it was proved and a relationship achieved through the Cross.

But let me add this. (Here comes an aside. We need to grasp Romans 3-5 (above) as well as Romans 6 (the following) ) Most guy’s I have known doubt because they have given into a repetitive sin. In that instance we must battle the sin with all our energy in the power of the Holy Spirit. Admit it to a mate and be accountable. Why? Because of the gospel! You see, we do not give up certain sins because the Bible lists it as wrong. No. We give up certain sins because we are one in Christ - we are in a relationship with Jesus - and he should be our all in all. He should be enough. He is enough. And when you break these laws, you are unfaithful to Jesus.

Imagine this (I’ve nicked this from a great book called ‘searching for God knows what’ by Don Miller - cheers Tomos J). You are in the church on your wedding day, your all excited and loved up. As the music starts and you turn to see your bride walk down the aisle (I cried like a stupid little girl who lost her Girls aloud CD at this point. Oh well..). Imagine at that point she starts checking out the other guys! Looking at some of the guests and giving them the eye! I would go mad and run for it! You know, we are the bride of Christ (sorry for the girly language - but it’s Ephesians - take it up with Paul…Oh, and I guess the Song of Solomon -Rated 21). And as the bride of Christ, when we live for other things or put repetitive sins as a regular feature of our life - we are unfaithful. The Old Testament calls it being a whore. We kick Him in the teeth. We literally laugh at the Cross. Sin is ugly. Sin is sick. Get rid of it.

(Back to the main point)

She was right. It really is all about the gospel. We must never forget Jesus. We must be suspicious of any sermon that does not end up with the gospel. We must meditate on the gospel year after year after year. We must love the gospel/ Jesus more and more with every communion. We must never forget that ‘it’s all about the gospel’.

Thanks be to God for godly women!

That’s why the girl is always right.