In defence of looking into the darkness

This piece has been taken down to be published more fully elsewhere.

True Virtue

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by."

Greeks can't spell Hercules

Heracles, in the days of his youth, was walking along a path when he encountered a crossroads. At the entrance to one of the two paths stood Arete, the goddess of virtue and at the entrance to the other was Cacia, the goddess of vice.
Each tried to persuade the hero to endeavour down her path. Cacia offered first - if he would walk her path, he would have wealth and pleasure above and beyond imagination. Arete, though, offered a life of struggle followed by glory.

Heracles chose the path of virtue, and I'm sure disney has given you a fair indication of the type of struggle he had before, at the end of his struggle against Hades, being invited to join the gods on Mt. Olympus.

I hope you don't find all this boring.
So what's my point? My point is that we too have changed our perception of what virtue is. Arete stood for self-sacrifice, kindness, loyalty and everything in between.
But the greeks didn't enjoy the stories about her, (being a goddess of virtue, they tended more toward Little House on the Prairie than the Game of Thrones-style sex and bloody violence that people wanted.)  So they told very few stories about her and the goddess faded into a word - and the word meant virtue. In time, though, due to evolved usage from Homer, and the complicity of translators, it came to mean, not 'virtue', but 'effectiveness'.

Dull bit over. Promise.

Looking into the soul of a society

One can tell rather a lot about the values of a society by words that they change the meaning to. Colloquially, the use of the word 'gay' as a generic insult in the 90's was indicative of the prevalent homophobia that still existed. Similarly, the term husband, for the german-language fans out there, is a genderless term for house(hus) owner(bunda), demonstrative of a patriarchal society - the male spouse must, of course, be the homeowner!

Liberal point-scoring over, my point is that we have overseen a change to what we perceive 'virtue' to be: We regard things as 'virtues' which are completely alien to character and simple accidents of nature.

Not being different

Yet these things are demonstrably key factors in the choosing of our Christian leaders. Charisma, ambition, 'magnetic-personality' - these are the words I hear as future leaders are being considered. Most obvious, I suppose, would be the special regard to intelligence. In reference to character, to comment on a man's intelligence is about as profound as calling him tall.

Don't get me wrong, just as height and strength once made leaders into talismans as we marched into battle, so do charm and intelligence make our pastors into figureheads.
But those battle-leaders were as equipped to wreak havoc as they were to pursue and instil justice.

Quite simply, we shouldn't be looking for figureheads. We need True, humble leaders. And, of course, from that pool of men and women will rise some greats. The fruit will always be of the same DNA as the root.
The Church is no longer distinctive in this regard. We value the same things that the world does.
Leadership is not a virtue, it is a function. A vital function at that - so much so that one in possession of such a gift might be tempted to say to the hand 'I have no need of you'.

To delve into cliche, I wonder which of us would have picked Moses the stammerer as our voice to the most powerful man on earth.
Is it with resignation that we say that Man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart? That's not God gloating that he has x-ray vision - it's a clear imperative on how we are to choose those who will lead us under God!

No pragmatists here, please

When the Church is weak, as it could be well-argued to be in the UK right now, we are tempted to excuse pragmatism: to, for the sake of the gospel ask fewer questions pertaining to character and holiness of our leaders. We instead look purely for those who can get things done. Who can speak with fluidity and charm. Who are good at networking and have the charisma to draw people in.

None of these are bad things. But none of these are virtues in and of themselves.
Nor are they requirements of leaders.

Ironically, it's the connection with Heracles that I believe led the evolution of the word to be regarding (and I quote) 'manly qualities' and, in time, 'excellence, of any kind'. Paul instructs us to meditate upon ἀρετὴ (arete) - perhaps etymology is not quite what he had in mind, but as a well-Hellenised man, I am mostly certain that he meant 'virtue', rather than 'being good at manly stuff'.
I'd sooner follow a good man than a smart one. This shouldn't even be a dilemma for the Christian. Our victory is assured... all that remains is the manner in which we live, what to do with the time given to us, and whether we will appoint generals of the same calibre as our king.

I have far more to say on this - some of which is in this old post.

Zack Eswine has learned this lesson the hard way and says this:

"To desire to be an overseer is marvellous thing. Aspire to greatness in it! Aspire to frequent the unknown, to bless the unnamed, to lose your fame and your reputation among the influential, in order to take a stand against appearance-making as a way of life and ministry. The woods await you… he will meet you there. Jesus, the famous one." (I've told you to read this book before. Please do)

So here you stand at the crossroads - take off the lumbering armour of your status and ambition, for the road is long.
Load your sling with pebbles. There's a lot of work to be done.

Is the gospel that you present broad enough?

I don't want this to feel like a class. This is actually a very quick post, just to try to get a handle on something. But do me a favour - it'll really help me out. If a friend said, "for my sister to become a Christian, what does she need to know?", how would you answer?

Take a moment.

Another friend. "My sister has severe learning difficulties. What does she need to know in order to be saved?" How do you answer that?

Last question: Apart from perhaps an obviously different tone, were your answers different? Why?

The Broad Gospel

I'm not just having a go. It's not that I've located a new way to make people feel bad about themselves.

Here's what it is - I don't think many of us, if we took our answer to the first question, would be able, using the same categories, to say that a baby can be saved. That someone with Alzheimer's can be saved. Maybe even for some of the answers, just someone with a slightly lower-than-average IQ. And if the Church, God's missional team on earth, is sending out this kind of vibe, then what hope does the world have?

Is it possible that we have allowed Christianity in the UK to be essentially for the educated middle class? Have we tied the gospel to academic thinking only the privileged are given access to?

Luke tells us that the basest understanding required is at least no more complex than realising Jesus' innocence and asking of the Lord: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 

I have a sincere belief that we do not behave or speak in accordance with this truth.

Keep Defending!

Don't hear what I'm not saying - we must keep defending the doctrines of our faith - they are essential. Those who deny the resurrection should never be allowed to speak from our pulpits; those who oppose atonement, sanctification, the presence and evil of sin shall have no part in pastoral ministry.

But I do wonder if we have spent so long fighting these battles that we've forgotten what we're really here for.And I wonder if we've lost sight of a crucial distinction:

The difference between denying doctrine and not ascribing to it.

There are myriad people who are incapable of ascribing to such doctrines as substitutionary atonement...  because they do not know what it means - such people are not deniers of the faith: I know of old ladies who would say "Oh, I don't know about such things" if you were to ask them of inerrancy; yet I guarantee that the way they read and scour the Scriptures is a truer reaction to the inerrant Word than any zealous young man reading this post possesses. 

I used to go to church with a child with cerebral palsy - one could never quite be sure that he was listening to or understanding when he was spoken to. But he would cry out with such unabashed joy in church when he heard the word 'Jesus', or when we sang hymns, that only a liar could say he did not love the Lord.

Start Preaching!

J.C. Ryle's observation in his book Christian Leaders of the 18th Century, which documented the rise of Christianity in England and Wales during the great revival of the time, was that "they were not ashamed to crucify their style"

Much like today, the majority of the communicators of the gospel were well educated, many of them public-schooled, and had the capacity to intellectually engage and come out with the most profound points, I'm sure, relating the gospel to the teachings of Cicero, Aristotle and whoever else they had encountered in their education.

But that is not what they did - George Whitefield, despite being from humble origins, went from Gloucester's grammar school to Oxford University - yet was to be found years later by the exit to the coal mines, preaching the gospel with such basic zeal, that the miners could be seen with "white gutters made by their tears down their black cheeks."

Archbishop Ussher once said "To make easy things seem hard is easy, but to make hard things easy is the office of a great preacher."

They crucified their style - they spoke plainly and boldly of Christ crucified and raised, of people sinful and forgiven, of the world fallen and destined for being made new.

Ryle said that Whitefield preached a 'singularly pure gospel', 'He was perpetually telling you about your sins, your heart, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the absolute need of repentance, faith and holiness, in the way the Bible presents these mighty subjects. "Oh, the righteousness of Jesus Christ!" he would often say; "I must be excused if I mention it in almost all of my sermons."'

These miners and their families to whom he preached were completely illiterate - the revivalists' schooling would be lost on them...except for the plain duty that came with being able to read the Bible, and communicate its message.

The Broad Shoulders

"Christ died for all"

Do you believe this to be true? Do you behave thus?

Whitefield explains what drew him to dedicating his life to preaching to the poor and base people in England and Wales despite having traveled even as far as America: "Having no righteousness of their own to renounce, they were pleased to hear of Jesus who was a friend to publicans..."

This post will not be convicting to all - there are many brothers and sisters dedicating themselves to preaching the gospel to the poor. (There are also many who have dedicated themselves to preaching to the privileged - and this, too, is good and right - for surely the point of this is that all people need to hear the gospel.)

But my question is, is there anyone whom you think the gospel is not for? Anyone too rich, anyone too stupid, anyone too young; anyone too lacking in cognition? You are wrong. We must crucify this attitude.

Karl Barth, one of the most complex theologians of the last century, whose academic works trouble the brightest of students, was once asked to sum up his life's teachings. He replied 

"Jesus loves me, this I know,

For the Bible tells me so."

These words were also sung at a funeral I attended of a young boy, who had chosen the song himself. Towards the end, he was barely aware of our presence around his bed... but he knew this.

And we will finish with a useful litmus test:

If you don't know how to communicate the gospel to illiterate fishermen... then you do not yet know how to communicate the gospel.

Why Predestination is Good News

As a child, I loved the Greek myths - rural England was far too short of jeopardy for a young boy. Perhaps, had I lived in Australia, the local flora and fauna would have presented enough dangers for me not to retreat elsewhere, but so be it.

For myself, above and beyond the Hydras, Minotaurs, Harpies and Sphinxes, the most terrifying creatures were the Sirens.

These nymphs, who lived on an island, were the most beautiful creatures in the world, and sang so beautifully that all men who heard them could not resist going towards them... such sailors would then be dashed on the rocks and the sirens would devour their flesh.

Only two men ever passed that island alive: One was Odysseus, who so desired to hear the voice of the sirens that he instructed his men to block their ears with beeswax, and lash him firmly to the mast, but with his ears uncovered, as they sailed past.

He was in agony: as he heard the music he strained against the ropes, crying and gurgling, and his wrists and arms were bloodied as they scraped against the knots that held him down.

But he passed the sirens, and reached safety.

Irresistible Grace

The doctrine of irresistible grace is one that has caused great consternation amongst many Christians. The image is one of people being dragged, kicking and screaming into heaven.

C.S. Lewis describes his conversion: 

"You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England"

(Surprised by Joy)

Yet, do we think his free will was triumphed over by God? By Him who set two trees in Eden, by Him who returned to His people again and again as they whored themselves to other gods; by Him who made man even while already surrounded by adoring angels? This is no God with an implanted 'believe' switch in the head of every human, but one who bears patiently with those whom he loves.
And we can only love Him because of this.

Let us return to the sirens. The other man to pass them was Jason, along with his Argonauts. The goddess Hera had told him, before he sailed past the sirens, to pick up a man called Orpheus.

As they passed the island and the creatures started to sing, Orpheus pulled out his Lyre and began to play.

The music he played was so sweet, that the sailors sat, entranced, oblivious to the sirens' ever more desperate wailing as the winds took them out of earshot.

This is irresistible grace. Not irresistible strength, nor deceptive allure - but they were exposed to the truest joy, and no longer desired that which brought only death.

Lewis himself said in a paper that God finds our desires "too weak":

"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea."

So tell me, when I show such a child what the seaside looks like... have I taken his free will away?

Of course not. I have simply opened his eyes and made him a guest of reality.

The choice

Before I go on to further demonstrate why this is good news, I must emphasise also, that it is the only option over and against some severely awful news.

To illustrate, let's play every child's favourite game: asking the question 'Why?' until blood comes out of daddy's ears:

Why are you a Christian and your best friend is not?

Because I believed and trusted Jesus and they didn't

Why?

Because I understood that I was sinful and needed forgiveness and they didn't

Why?

Because I saw that Jesus was perfect and my life was destructive and they didn't

Why?

And so on, and so forth.

Eventually though, you will answer in one of two ways:

a) Because the Spirit opened my wicked heart and turned me t'ward my Saviour

or

b) Because I was humble enough / intelligent enough / good enough to see what I had to do... 

...and they weren't.

Put frankly, there are only two options - predestination, or a gospel of works.

Why does God love you?

(and are you still doing it!?)

Either God is entirely in control of our salvation and draws us to him, or there is something within us that either qualifies or disqualifies us. 

If you can suspend disbelief long enough to imagine that I am married, then I will at least make the story more realistic by asking my wife, "Why do you love me?".

Well, if she answers that she loves me because of my patience, then I live in fear of the fast-approaching day when I will snap at her. Or for my humour, the fast-approaching day when I've used all of my jokes and begin to recycle. Or for my wisdom, the day she witnesses me making a mistake. Or for my body, the day she goes to Specsavers. 

The only way to answer that question is "I just do."

Moving on from my hapless, imaginary wife - how does God answer that question? In the same fashion in which he answered Moses's question of who he is: "I love you because I love you."

If the answer is anything else, then the Christian life becomes all about keeping that thing, that reason he loves you, going.

Odysseus straining against the ropes is not a caricature of irresistible grace, but one of the Christian life without a firm belief in predestination. Martin Luther, before he understood that justification did not come from any of his own merit, realised that he could have no confidence that he had ever done enough - he sinned, and so could have no assurance. In penance he pilgrimmed up the 491 steps of St Peter's basilica on his knees, and, reaching the top, grazed and bloody, knew still that he had no confidence.

If the only call we receive is from the world, then all we can do is strive and strain and grasp at assurance like a fool at the clouds.

Non-belief in predestination and not having assurance does not affect, of course, whether or not you are saved. But I would that all my brothers and sisters, as long as they are on this ship, would listen to that glorious music, rather than bind themselves with worldly knots against worldly pleasures.

Because it is not just the world who calls out to us. Because we are predestined from the dawn of time:

"...and those he predestined he also called; those he called, he also justified, those he justified, he also glorified." (Romans 8:30)

This is perhaps less than half of what I wanted to write on the matter. As well as the caricature of people being dragged kicking and screaming into heaven, there is the equally, if not more, troubling image of them being dragged kicking and screaming into hell. I hope that much of this has dispelled both of these, but I shall be attentive to any comments and glad to continue the conversation.