We have moved to www.theprognosis.org

“WHY I WAS AND NOW AM A (closet) EVANGELICAL”

For a long time, I’d been trying to disassociate myself with the word evangelical. Whenever anyone asked me ‘what sort of christian are you?’ My immediate response would be to use ‘a christian christian’ or ‘bible believing christian’ as an answer. For a long time I’ve had a real problem saying evangelical, or especially ‘born again’. Not so much on theological grounds, but more on cultural/dispositional ones.

You see, I couldn’t help but make a connection between the word evangelical and a stiff, joyless and morbid christianity - a christianity that was too scared to realise that it existed in the 21st century. Anything ‘new’ was looked upon with concern or even a type of proud fear. Evangelicalism for me had become an exclusive gang that was only going to be ablt to attract the boring, the bored, or the social cameleon. This was not a selling point. My problem with using the word came from within the big C Church.

And even though I couldn’t disagree with the doctrine, I found myself mightily disagreeing with the attitudes.

But was my problem with the word? No, of course it wasn’t. By definition, I was an evangelical - I believed in the final and full authority of the Bible. I believed that without God coming after me, him giving me life, him saving my soul, by grace, through faith in the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ then I would be dead and without hope. Whether I liked it or not, I was a historical evangelical. I stood for all it stood for.

But in spite of my entymological pilgrimage, I’ve now realised that things have got to change. It’s not important what I mean when I use the word. What’s important is how it’s heard. In the current culture, it doesn’t matter what the historical evangelicalism is, because one man’s evangelicalism might be another man’s beret wearing, fake tan donning, cross-less, original sin-less, Christ-less, salvation-by-group hug, bring twenty quid and raise the dead Sunday club. Death by association anyone?

So am I an evangelical? Yes and no. What exactly do you mean by evangelical?

Jonny. I’m with you. Just call me Christ’s.

Beyond everything else, the worst thing I’ve ever been told is ’these days, a normal evangelical church congregation can only handle 30 minutes expository preaching’. Without a shadow of a doubt, this is the most crippling sentence in my memory.

The guy who told me this had a theory - Television programmes are broken down mainly into 30 minute episodes. As most of a congregation will watch the television (though one of prognosis’ bloggers doesn’t. Can you tell which one? I’ll give you a clue - he’s the one that still thinks that Anthea Turner is a welcomed new addition to the Blue Peter team), they’re trained to only take thirty minutes of information at a time. Preachers that go on for any longer will find that the congregation will develope a sudden bout of piles and start moving their butts around on the seat - officially to get comfortable, actually to make clear to the preacher ‘Look! Are you going to get to the point or what?! I’ve got a chicken in the oven, you know!’

Or at least that’s how I’ve been interrpreting the bumshuffle ever since I was given the 30 minute golden rule. I don’t think there’s been a week in church where I haven’t been slightly paranoid about causing Mrs. ****’s chicken to chargrill.

So last Sunday night a tough one. I popped down to Ammanford Church to preach at their Welsh language meeting. It’s a big encouragement to ‘go west’ and preach. People from that part of the world are ‘my people’ - we talk the same, dress the same, support the same rugby team - so many of the cultural issues that you’d normally have to deal with are sorted. I felt like Paul going to preach at a Benjaminite home group.

Because of this, I was relaxed and that may have played a part in me hitting 50minutes. It wasn’t like it was an upbeat 50 either - 50 minutes on Psalm 22, the horrors of the cross. I was gutted. I’d broken the golden rule. ‘How could God bless if I’ve gone on for 20minutes too long?’.

Sunday night came and went, I pouted til Monday afternoon, but continued to feel pretty annoyed about it until about Wednesday when I listened to an mp3 of Tim Keller giving a lecture about what an evangelical ministry should look like.

He started explaining that one day, he was reading a translation of Romans 1 that had verse 17 not as the usual ‘the righteous shall live by faith’, but ’he who by faith is righteous shall live’. He said that the moment that he read that, he heard a voice adding ‘and he who by preaching is righteous shall die every Sunday’.

This was a watershed moment, as it was for me, hearing him say it all in light of preaching for so long the Sunday before. Keller explained how for so long during his ministry, though he confessed Christ as his righteouness, his ‘functional righteousness’ was in fact his preaching. So, when he preached well, he would think that God must be for him, and that when he preached badly, he would think that God was against him.

This was a real eureka moment for me. I saw that my functional saviour had become ‘the 30 minute rule’. Stick to it and God will bless, break it and God cannot. Totally against the truth. Totally against grace. It’s all of grace, whether God blesses or not. I want to live (and sleep like a Calvinist), I want Jesus as my rightousness, not my preaching.

Right, a very quick blog. I’m putting off returning to work on Ruth 3. It’s so hard - ‘ladies - this is not the way to find a husband’ - maybe I’m missing the point slightly.

Thought I might blog about some of the things I’ve been doing recently (apart from preaching for two and a half hours last Sunday night…).

Firstly, our new church website is finally up - cwmpawd.org

It’s taken a long time to get right, but it’s something I’m very pleased with. I was fairly convicted at the start of the year that as a Church in the city we had no excuse for not having a good website. Yes, we’re dealing with the spiritual, but until we get a chance to get to work on the spiritual, we’re competing for people’s free time. Long gone are the days of people just wandering in on a Sunday night. Like our favourite (not Chalkey, the other one - Driscoll) says ‘the web is the new front door of the Church’. If we’re going to compete for people’s time, then we’ve got to do so against the Vue, the endless coffee shops on Crwys Rd, the Blues, the Cardiff Devils, and much more besides. For a metropolitan church not to have a decent website - by not just christian ‘let’s be gracious in our attitude’ standards, but by everyone else’s standards - is like being some hypercalvinist that is ’surprised’ when no-one sticks his head round to church door to ‘wonder what all the godly chatter’ he hears is. The web is the first, probably the only, place someone will go to find out about something new.

The other thing I’ve been doing recently is making some films, one of which you can see above. A couple of weeks ago I stood on a concrete puddle which seven years ago was the sight of the national eisteddfod in Llanelli. The place has a lot of memories - it’s where I first went into y gorlan, and first heard the gospel. For those of you that don’t speak the language of heaven (sic.), the film is my testimony. What a great day, remembering and sharing how Christ has worked in my life!

I now help run y gorlan. It’s a 24/7 Christian burger tent right in the middle of the festivals youth camp site. This year we’ll be showing some films inside, one of which is the above.

You don’t have to be able to speak welsh to work there - language is no barrier to flipping a burger, and the truth is, the more people that don’t speak welsh there frees up a welshy to contact work over the counter. If you’re free between the 4th and 11th of August, get in touch - it’d be great to have you along.

Just to make it a little clearer. Here’s the promo film we made last year.

It’s been a little while since I’ve been able to write a blog. I may not have dropped to the infrequency of Jon or Tom, but my initial burst from the bloggingblocks has slowed to a hobble over recent weeks, at this point a quick recap over one of Sam’s entries might give you an insight into why. Life in the Church game can be busy, hours can be long, and those ‘just one more hour’ add up. I thank God for Jenny who occasionally functions as a type of time management conscience.

The reason for the hiatus then was a burst of mega tiredness, and as stupid as this is going to sound, it’s something that I’ve honestly never felt before. From Monday through to Thursday it felt like my legs were cement, and I couldn’t wait for bed to come round. It was a million miles away from anything near the christian workers’ gold medal (sic.) ‘burnout’ , but it was a stark reminder that I have only one body, and it’s one that I must use in a godly and wise way. Forty years of ministry with bed wanting legs that feel like cement does not sound like fun.

Anyway, now for the confessional.

This week, I made a BIG mistake, and learnt yet another lesson. I shall explain it with the aid of a map.

Part of my job is preaching away. That means that for one Sunday every month, I preach at another church. Sometimes this is local, sometimes not so much. This is part of the reason that I dislike anything north of Brecon in Wales . It’s not that the people are not nice, or that it’s smelly or anything like that - it’s just that so much of Wales is so difficult to get to. The fact that the simplest way to travel to North Wales is via Spaghetti Junction should prove my point. This incidentally, is why I think that there’s such a divide between gogs and us posh southerners. It’s not that we’re that different to each other, we just can’t be bothered to visit.

This coming Sunday though, I was lucky. In my diary in fat read pen was ‘Ebeneser, Charles Street x2′. It really isn’t too long a journey, as you can see from the map below.

Nothing to worry about there then. According to Google Maps, that’s a journey of 1.4 Miles.

All was well. Until I got a phonecall at 7:20 last night.

“Lewis Roderick, Mr. Thomas here - I believe you know my son…”

This was true, though at the time, it meant nothing to me. I didn’t know who Mr. Thomas was, or know which one of my friends was his son.

“Er, yes…” says I.

“Good good. Matthew says that you know him through Iwan…”

Ah, yeah! This is Matt Thomas’ dad.

“…Looking forward to seeing you this Sunday. Half past ten start.”

- By this point I’m sorted. I know who the guy is. Matt Thomas’ dad must be the guy who books the speakers for Ebeneser.

“Yes, I’m looking forward to…” - I go cold.

Matt Thomas isn’t from Cardiff . How is his dad booking the speakers for Ebeneser? Matt’s from Dolgellau or somewhere.

“Mr. Thomas, where is the Church building?”

“Not far from the station really…”

“Which one, exactly?” Please say Queen Street, please say Queen Street…

“Um, the one in the middle of Penrhyndeudraeth. The only station is the town - not that big a place. It’s not Cardiff you know!”

He wasn’t kidding. Check it out on the map. This is a double booking of gargantuan proportions. A 280 mile round trip.

I praise God for a lesson learnt with time to fix a problem. I praise God for forgiving Elders who are willing to drop everything and help me out by preaching when they didn’t know they were going to. I praise God for an understanding church in Cardiff that said they’d ‘still like me to come in the future’. I praise you Father that you have, and will continue in the future to use doughnuts like me to make Christ known through the foolishness of preaching.

I’m going to be unashamedly simple in this blog.

Towards the end of his life, the Apostle Peter wrote a letter to a group of churches ’scattered’ throughout Turkey and Greece. In it he wrote words that are familar to me, though ones that have developed a new found sense of depth through reading ‘Pierced for our Transressions’ by Jeffery, Ovey and Sachs (does anyone else think that that would be a great name for a band - maybe a jazz trio - ‘Jeffery, Ovey and Sax’).

That’s easily the worst joke I’ve ever made.

Starting in 1 Peter2: 21, Peter recalls Isaiah, telling these churches that in the face of suffering, they should endure like Jesus; ‘“He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have been returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.‘

How is Jesus referred to here? As the Great Shepherd, who is willing to become like an innocent lamb and die for lost sheep. Though he designed the mouths that swore at him ‘he did not retaliate’; though he made the tree that they hung him from, ‘he made no threats’.

And as I read these words this afternoon, it dawned on me how crazy that must have been for Peter to stand there and witness it all. Peter afterall, is a doer - ‘why stop and think, when you can ‘do’? A man that had never stayed silent in all his life, and yet I’ll bet he was stunned into silence by what he was watching. Why didn’t Jesus do something?

This is Peter’s God! This is his King - to whom he said “You are the Christ!” - What must Peter have been thinking? He knew how powerful Jesus was - why don’t you do something?! He witnessed him tell a storm to stop - He saw him raise the paralysed - he saw him raise the dead! - ‘Why don’t you do something?’; ‘Why don’t you say something?’

He opened not his mouth.

The whole thing would’ve shut Peter’s mouth.

And it shuts mine now.

Praise Him.

Thought I might wade in with a quick blog about the penal substitution thingy. Here’s mine…

Since the arrival of Orange Wednesdays, I’ve been able to afford to not only go to the cinema, but occasionally even treat my girlfriend to a date (I know, I’m just all heart, right?). Over the last few dozen visits (which probably speaks volumes about how often the UGC change their trailers) I’ve noticed one advert in particular that exposes a subtle truth about our society, and is something that I as a Christian must be very aware of.

So for the sake of context*, here’s the aforementioned advertisement. Those of you that love a bit of irony will appreciate that it’s a copy of the film illegally filmed on a cameraphone (which I hasten to add, I did not make).

What is it? It’s the FederationAgainstCopyrightTheft’s attempt to dissuade you from walking into a screening of ‘[said film]‘ and whipping out the nokia, banging the video on a VCD and selling them down your local market for a fiver each. 

  
Now obviously, Jesus doesn’t like stealing, of any sort - other’s wives, belongings, cattle and sheep - it’s all wrong. As video piracy is just another form of stealing, I’m not to going to blog about how we should ’stick it to the man’ and watch what we like. It’s not even a matter for debate - video piracy is sin, be it from a market stall or tvlinks.   
 

What I am interested in though, is the particular way that the advert tries to dissuade you from doing so.  
  
“There’s nothing quite like the big screen experience of seeing (Apocalypto, Narnia, add your film here) at the cinema. Though Some people will choose to watch an illegal copy. They’ll lose the incredible picture, miss out on the spectacular sound, and have the dodgy camera views spoilt by the one person that really needed the loo…”   
 

It’s subtle, isn’t it? There’s a subtext;  
‘There are some in this world that would choose to sink to such levels… but you are different. You’re better than that.’  
‘You don’t want to be like those… Video pirates(!), do you?’  
 

What strikes me is the way the advertisers are appealing to my pride in order to prevent me from pirating films. In other words, in order for me to live righteously (i.e. - not steal films), the film makers are dangling the proverbial in front of my sin (pride).  
 

And it’s made me wonder if I do the same in my pursuit of holiness. For instance, in exactly the same way that the film makers are pressing my pride to stop me from doing a bad thing, do I not also depend on my pride for much of my daily battle with sin? Is my motivation to be more holy/loving/trusting/patient/kind/gentle/godly not just motivated by a desire to be seen as more holy/loving/trusting/patient/kind/gentle/godly?  
 

I reckon it is, you know. So often over the last few days I’ve realised that my main reason for not sinning, is simply to be seen as someone who doesn’t sin. And the outcome is that though I may be outwardly living a purer life, my heart remains unchallenged and unchanged. It is possible to live a godly life, in an ungodly way. Though the cinema advert hasn’t convicted me of stealing from the film makers, it has certainly convicted me that I steal his glory in my pursuit of holiness.  
 

Guys, join me in repentance if this touches a nerve. There is a motivation that is so much greater than my ego. Jesus is better. Let’s pray together that he’ll satisfy, and become our reason for holiness.  
 

*We here at prognosis love the context  

This afternoon I went on the radio to talk about sex, or rather no sex. Following an article that appeared in the Independent last week which stated that the Bush government’s drive to promote sexual abstinence was coming to an end due to it simply not having any effect, the BBC’s Welsh language station Radio Cymru rang asking if I’d be willing to make a comment about it. The column in question said

“Last week came the “shocking” news that President Bush’s $1bn abstinence campaign has failed. Despite its shaming slogans like, “Would you eat a cookie that already had a bite out of it?”, the Department of Health found no evidence that programmes such as the Silver Ring Thing affected rates of sexual abstinence.”

And it isn’t just on the American side of the pond. Another article, also in the Independent, talked about findings in this country on the same topic - “A new report from Ofsted, the education watchdog, concludes: “There is no evidence that abstinence-only programmes as the only education reduce teenage pregnancies or improve sexual health.”

So what have we gathered? That young people like sex - love it. Hardly worth spending a billion finding that one out, was it? No matter how much they try, people just can’t stop wanting sex, and doing it. No matter how intense the campaign to promote abstinence, young people, just can’t do it.

And that’s pretty much what I said on the show. Sex is good and fun and natural - why would people not do it?

Now, of course, as a Christian, I have some pretty clear opinions on the subject - Sex is good, but for the person that you marry. If you don’t have those bits, don’t think about them. Until that person is your spouse, they are your sibling in Christ, and doing stuff with a relative is beyond wrong. So keep all the bits kids play ‘you show me yours and I’ll show you mine’ with covered up until God says that you are one flesh.

‘One flesh’ is the Bible’s way of saying, married. Sex is the reward for promising to love and honour and care for a person from the day you’re married until the day God calls one of you to glory. Between these two (fairly) massive events in your life, sex is to be enjoyed. God’s even dedicated a book in the Bible to the subject of enjoying sex. What I was hoping to get across on the show this afternoon was not that the Bible (and therefore Christians) is anti-sex, God is very much pro-sex, but only when it’s done on his terms.

As a Christian, it doesn’t surprise me to read that the Abstinence programme that Bush’s government implemented and funded didn’t work. What did surprise me is the way that the news was reported. “Success of abstinence in cutting teen pregnancies is a ‘myth’” was one headline that I read (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/01/nsex01.xml).

Hang on a minute… ‘Success of abstinence in cutting teen pregnancies is a ‘myth” - am I reading that properly? Is the paper honestly telling me that it’s a myth that teenagers can avoid getting pregnant by abstaining from sex? Isn’t the best way to not get pregnant by not doing the sex thing? Whilst we’re on the subject, surely the best way to not catch an STD is to not T the D by S?

Of course, this is not what the paper is saying. The ‘myth’ is that the teenagers are abstaining from sex in the first place. No matter how much money is spent on encouraging them to not do it - why should they not, when they find out how good it is?

You see, it’s a question of motivation. Sex is too powerful to simply give up, too good. When you refrain from sex for no other reason other than ‘your own well being’, you simply ain’t going to be able to do it. Instead what’s needed is a motivation that’s bigger than even the fear of catching a baby or a very nasty itch. And the only thing that’s big enough is God. When He’s your motivation, you can.

As I’ve been writing, I’ve been thinking about why people want sex on their terms. Now the good old fashioned reformed answer would be ‘because we are all depraved sinners’, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that. What is it about sex that makes sinners want it on their terms, and not God’s?

Might it be a longing for the high you get from love, but without all the faff of ‘is this the one?’? I’m sure that for a lot of people it would be - they know that love will satisfy them, and they (rightly) see sex as the physical sign of the love that people desire so much.

And of course, we live in a world where we ‘get’ instantly, and we’re used to taking the short cut if there’s one available. So if you want coffee, but without having to wait to grind the beans - instant coffee. ‘You want credit but without all the form filling? Et viola! Internet instant credit!’

You want love but without the wait? Sex. The only problem is, no matter how much you get, it will never satisfy you. And you know what? The bit that’s really going to get you is that even if you find that one partner that you remain totally monogamous with, you’ll still not be satisfied. Deep down, there’ll be a part of the satisfaction that’ll be missing.

Do you want real love? Even when you’ve been at your most deplorable, God has loved you. Even when you have told him that you make the decision in the life that he gave you, God has loved you, and has given himself for you. No matter how broken or dirty your heart is, Christ died to let you experience love that satisfies. His love is instant, and eternal, sustaining and satisfying.

I’m sat in my study, preparing two sermons for Easter Sunday. The boss is preaching away so I’m minding the baby, if you will. Thought we’d pop off to Emmaus with Cleopas and his wife, Mary from Luke 24 (Here’s a thought. Why is every chick in the Bible called Mary?). As I was preparing, it struck me that the Cleopases, and for that matter, all the disciples’ big problem was that though they read their Bibles like good little Jewish kids, they truly had no clue what the Messiah was meant to do. They were all for the victorious, triumphant King, but missed the point about how exactly that triumph came about - through his suffering and death. They were all about the Psalm 2 Messiah (ironrod wielding enemy-crusher), and ignored the Psalm 22 Messiah (God-forsaken suffering servant). They read in part, and either ignored the bits they didn’t like, or didn’t understand.

Made me think about making pancakes.

To make pancakes you need flour, milk, and eggs. You’ll see that written clearly at the top of any pancake recipe. However at this point, if after reading part of the recipe you think to yourself; ‘I’ve got the ingredients, stuff the rest of the recipe, I’ll figure it out myself!‘ you won’t end up with pancakes at all. You’ll more than likely end up with Yorkshire Pudding. Which, from experience, taste very bad with marshmallows and banana in them.

The Cleopases missed out on recognising Jesus, because they weren’t expecting him. This happened through skipping over the bits of the Bible that they didn’t understand/like. And they ended up with a warped idea of what the Messiah was meant to do (Yorkshire Pud).

Jesus fixes the problem by showing them what to look for when they read their Bibles, er… Him.

Unless we become familiar with Jesus as he wants to be depicted throughout the whole Bible, I fear we may not even notice him if he were to come up to us on the street (get it?).

It all about him.

Jesus is the true and better Adam who passed the test in the garden and whose obedience is imputed to us.

Jesus is the true and better Abel who, though innocently slain, has blood now that cries out, not for our condemnation, but for acquittal.

Jesus is the true and better Abraham who answered the call of God to leave all the comfortable and familiar and go out into the void not knowing wither he went to create a new people of God.

Jesus is the true and better Isaac who was not just offered up by his father on the mount but was truly sacrificed for us. And when God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from me,” now we can look at God taking his son up the mountain and sacrificing him and say, “Now we know that you love us because you did not withhold your son, your only son, whom you love from us.”

Jesus is the true and better Jacob who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserved, so we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds of grace to wake us up and discipline us.

Jesus is the true and better Joseph who, at the right hand of the king, forgives those who betrayed and sold him and uses his new power to save them.

Jesus is the true and better Moses who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant.

Jesus is the true and better Rock of Moses who, struck with the rod of God’s justice, now gives us water in the desert.

Jesus is the true and better Job, the truly innocent sufferer, who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends.

Jesus is the true and better David whose victory becomes his people’s victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.

Jesus is the true and better Esther who did not just risk leaving an earthly palace but lost the ultimate and heavenly one, who did not just risk his life, but gave his life to save his people.

Jesus is the true and better Jonah who was cast out into the storm so that we could be brought in.

Jesus is the real Rock of Moses, the real Passover Lamb, innocent, perfect, helpless, slain so the angel of death will pass over us. He’s the true temple, the true prophet, the true priest, the true king, the true sacrifice, the true lamb, the true light, the true bread.

The Bible’s really not about you — it’s about Him.

(Tim Keller)

Yesterday I went to a lecture by a man who’s phd was so good that it actually killed a man. The lecture was on the subject of heresies and cults - he told us that apparently we can believe something to be true, and we can believe something to be not true. But just because something is not true, it doesn’t necassarily mean that it’s heresy.

Take baptism, for instance. There are two very different understandings with baptism. Some dunk, some splash. Some wait, some hope. And because there are two different understandings, they can’t both be right. One has to be wrong. But to believe the wrong thing about baptism is not to believe a heresy - it is simply to believe a misunderstanding. A heresy on the other hand, is something that if proved to be true, would undermine the entire Christian faith. Christianity does not depend on baptism.

And this got me thinking. If this is the definition of heresy, then Christmas for me will never be the same again.

Away in a manger,
No crib for His bed
The little Lord Jesus
Laid down His sweet head

The cattle are lowing
The poor Baby wakes
But little Lord Jesus
No crying He makes

Here’s a warning to everyone that gets their theology from hymns. This Christmas carol isn’t just wrong, it is almost heretical. This carol is the sort of thing that got you into serious trouble in sixteenth century Geneva. Now I know that the gospels are quiet when it comes to the matter of Jesus crying as a baby (though obviously not as a man - John 11:35) But are you really telling me that Jesus, as a newborn baby - cold, hungry, NEWBORN - would not have cried? To imagine this is to imagine a Jesus that is simply not human. And Jesus was human. He was fully human - he had to be, otherwise he could not have atoned for our sins when he died on the cross. He didn’t just look human. He was human.

Fully God. Fully human. Without this, there is nothing to get up for in the morning.