Changed in the twinkling of an eye

It's remarkable how people will believe anything except the truth.

People who have no time for the Bible say they have discovered from a calendar of the ancient Maya civilisation of Middle America that the world is due to end on December 21, 2012.

Television channels are talking about it, books are being written about it, websites are discussing it and Hollywood is making a film about it.

I am told by people who study such things that the Mayan calendar does not say that the world will end, but suggests that because of the position of the planets in the solar system at that time there will be terrifying repercussions down here, with earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and worldwide disasters. Some are now saying that life down here will end at that time.

Now I believe in Bible prophecy. After man first sinned, for instance, the Bible said that there would come a Saviour, divine, eternal, born of a woman, in Bethlehem, from the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of the tribe of Judah, of the house of David, at a time in accordance with the prophecy of Daniel. He would be despised and rejected of men, would die for the sins of the people, would be buried in a rich man's grave and would be resurrected. It happened. Other Bible prophecies have similarly been fulfilled.

Now does it not seem to you that if Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled have been fulfilled in such exact detail, then Bible prophecies which have not yet been fulfilled will be fulfilled in the same way?

There is one event prophesied in the Bible in greater detail perhaps than any other. (Whole chapters are devoted to it.) The Bible says that Jesus will come to earth a second time, not at the end of the world but at the end of this age, to deal with all those living who have not repented of their sins, to set up His earthly kingdom and to reign and rule, not just as King of the Jews, but as King of kings and Lord of lords.

We are not to set dates for His coming, but we are given signs of the time of His coming. There will be earthquakes, famines, wars and rumours of wars (Matt 24:6, 7). There will be signs in the sun, in the moon and in the stars, with men's hearts failing them for fear (Luke 21:25, 26). There is no reason to suppose this is countless years away.

The apostle writes in 2 Tim 3:1 - 5: "In the last days perilous times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power."

What period of time does that remind you of?

Now there is one thing that is to happen before Christ returns with His saints and His feet stand again on the Mount of Olives (He will return, the Bible says, to Jerusalem). He will take all those who belong to Him to be with Him.

This is described in 1 Cor 15:51, 52: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed - in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." We are told to be ready for that day.

It is described again in 1 Thess 4:13 - 18:

But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you should sorrow as others who have no hope.

If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with him those who sleep in Jesus.

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Therefore comfort one another with these words.

My favourite bit there is the last part of verse 17: "And thus we shall always be with the Lord."

What a prospect!

Wanted: a second William Booth

Britain, alas, seems to have done it again. The Daily Mail reports:

A vast study of youngsters' wellbeing in 30 industrialised nations ranked Britain among the worst for health, lifestyles and school standards relative to public spending levels.

Under-age teenagers in Britain are more likely to get drunk than those in any other country, and the proportions of teenage mothers and single-parent families are amongst the highest in the survey.

In "risky behaviour" - a combination of drinking, smoking and teenage pregnancy - Britain's performance is worse than all nations other than Turkey and Mexico.

Educational achievement is low given the billions poured in by Labour, with more than one in 10 youngsters aged 15 to 19 not in school, training or work. This is the fourth highest rate in the 30 countries. Only Italy, Turkey and Mexico perform worse. . .

The report, published by the economic think tank the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, compared data from 30 leading countries on children's welfare. . .

Teen drunkenness, as measured by the number of youngsters aged 13 and 15 who have been drunk at least twice, tops the league table at 33 per cent.

By an apparent coincidence, the letters page in the same issue of the same newspaper contained a letter from a Derek Hanna, of Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim. It said:

One of the nation's greatest sons, William Booth, once said: "The chief danger of the 20th century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, politics without God, salvation without regeneration and heaven without hell."

No wonder the nation is in such decline and the future looks so bleak.

The only hope, the letter said, is that God will raise up another William Booth. Or another John Wesley.

May it be so.

No feet, no footprints

It would be difficult to find someone these days who hasn't heard of man-made global warming, polar bears under threat and the need to reduce carbon footprints to save the planet. Forgive me if I sound flippant in talking about it: frankly, I don't believe it. (Actually, I hear the climate is getting colder.)

A British population control group has had an idea: stop babies being born so they won't be able to produce carbon footprints. The Optimum Population Trust from the London School of Economics points out that a lot of births are unplanned.

A report commissioned by the trust claims that contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional so-called green technologies, so the trust is calling for birth control to be included in funding for climate change in order to reduce the number of unintended births.

Said Anthony Ozimic, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children: "Whatever the evidence regarding man-made global warming, the right to life and the right to found a family are fundamental, universal human rights enshrined in legally binding international conventions. Will the members of the Optimum Population Trust please tell us which of their children should not have been born in order to save the earth?"

That reminds me of a married mother of three children I knew of who became pregnant a fourth time. She went to see her doctor and explained that she didn't really want more than three children.

"Well, let's see," said the doctor. "Of the three children you have at home, which one shall we get rid of?" The woman was horrified.

"Well," said the doctor, "the one you have in the womb is just as alive as the other three, so why not get rid of one of the older ones?"

The woman put away all thoughts of an abortion. She is now an active pro-lifer.

Obama, Israel and the Palestinians

I understand that when Barack Obama became US President he gave himself two years to resolve the Israel/Palestinian issue. There's optimism for you.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who became Israel's Prime Minister not too long ago, was said not to favour a two-state plan. Israel was under pressure from the US to agree to just that.

After careful consideration, Prime Minister Netanyahu said he would agree to two states on two conditions: first, that the Palestinians would recognise the Jewish state's right to exist, and second, that the Palestinian state would be a demilitarised state so that it would not be able to attack Israel.

The Palestinians' response was not long in coming. Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas, said the Israeli leader's speech "torpedoes all peace initiatives in the region."

Another Abbas aide, Yasser Abed Rabbo, said recognition of Israel's Jewish character was a demand for Palestinians "to become part of the global Zionist movement." Hamas said the speech reflected Mr Netanyahu's "racist and extremist ideology."

Kifah Radaydeh, a Fatah official, rather let the cat out of the bag. She said the Palestinian Authority will resume violence and terror against Israel when Fatah is "capable" and "according to what seems right." "It has been said that we are negotiating for peace," she said, "but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; our goal is Palestine."

At its recent conference in Bethlehem, Fatah, the so-called moderate wing of the Palestinians - perhaps emboldened by encouraging sounds from President Obama - embraced the Aksa Martyrs terror group as a Fatah organisation, endorsed the use of terrorism against Israel, demanded that all terrorists be released from Israeli prisons as a precondition to "peace" talks and decided that their national enterprise would not be achieved until not only Judea and Samaria but the whole of Jerusalem was cleansed of Jews and under Palestinian sovereignty.

President Obama does not have much cause for optimism. There are 22 Arab nations surrounding Israel with a combined population of more than 300 million, compared with Israel's five million Jews - a ratio of 58 to one. The Arabs have 5,300,000 square miles of land, compared with the Jews' 8,000 square miles - a ratio of more than 660 to one. But they are not concerned with the land they have. They want the bit Israel has.

In considering the issue, there are a number of other things to think about. First, the US has placed extreme pressure on Israel to cease building of any kind on land it hopes will be given to the Palestinians for a Palestinian state. (Imagine being told by another nation when you are able and not able to build on your land). Such building is said to be a stumbling block to peace. The real stumbling block to peace, however, is not Israeli building but the fact that the Palestinians refuse to accept the right of Israel to exist.

Second, Benjamin Netanyahu is pressured to negotiate with the Palestinians. How do you negotiate with someone who refuses to accept your right to exist and is still sworn to destroy you?

The third and most important fact is one that politicians of all kinds appear either to deny or to ignore. In the Bible, God calls the land of Israel "my land," a phrase He does not use to describe any other portion of land on the planet. The Bible makes it clear that God has given the land for an everlasting possession to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants - in other words, the Jews.

Try Gen 17:7, 8, 19 -21; Gen 28:13 - 15 and Gen 35:9 - 15. Or 1 Chron 16:15 - 22. Or Psa 105:8 - 12.

Well done the NHS

Britain's National Health Service has had some criticism recently, and often deservedly so. But the NHS does provide free treatment where it's needed, and sometimes it does an excellent job. Where praise is deserved, praise, as well as criticism, is in order.

Scott and Michelle Stepney, who live in Cheam in Surrey, had a four-year-old boy when Michelle found she was pregnant with twins. At 19 weeks of pregnancy, she was diagnosed with cervical cancer.

Current medical practice was immediate surgery, which would end the lives of the babies but virtually guarantee the mother's long-term survival. Michelle was given a stark choice: choose between her life and the lives of the babies.

Scott and Michelle spent the next few days in a turmoil of indecision. Scott wanted his wife alive. Michelle was hysterical with grief.

"I had my son Jack, who I adored," she said, "but these babies were already part of me. I had seen their faces on the scan. I was their mother. I was meant to protect them. How could I agree to their deaths just to save me? It felt like agreeing to murder."

Michelle pleaded with her cancer nurse at the Royal Marsden Hospital in Surrey for further help.

The Royal Marsden has an MRI scanner that is not only one of the most powerful in the country, but can provide clear close-up images.

According to the Daily Mail, 30 specialists, including obstetricians, gynaecologists, pathologists, surgeons, psychologists and a pioneering radiologist, armed with an extremely clear scanned image which showed where the tumour was and what type it was, met together to consider Michelle's case.

They devised a radical programme of low-grade chemotherapy which it was hoped would contain the development of the tumour without harming the babies until the babies were big enough to be delivered by Caesarean section. Michelle agreed to the programme.

At 33 weeks, Michelle went into premature labour and gave birth to twin girls, weighing 3lb 11oz and 3lb 5oz. She then had a hysterectomy.

Now two years later, the two girls are fine and Michelle doesn't have cancer. She is subject to six-monthly check-ups, but the cancer is gone.

Three lives saved, you might say, and a very grateful family.

Like I said, credit where credit's due.

Living with Big Brother

The United Kingdom is becoming more of a Big Brother state by the day. The Government has brought 3,500 new offences into law in the past 12 years.

Town hall officials, I'm told, now have a legal right to enter your home to see what you're up to. A request is made every minute to snoop on someone's phone records or e-mail accounts; laws designed to combat terrorism are being used by local councils to spy on people suspected of things like fly tipping; and CCTV cameras are everywhere.

Once upon a time, the local council removed your rubbish as a service to the public. Now householders appear to be here to serve the local council. We have four differently coloured wheelie bins at our home, and town hall despots have been issuing fines to old people for putting the wrong piece of rubbish in the wrong bin.

These are serious matters: something needs to be done. But it's important we don't become paranoid about it. So I was still able to enjoy the joke at Vital Signs' blog.

An old farmer named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in West Texas when suddenly a brand new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.

The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me one of them?"

Bud looks at the man quizzically, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and smiles. "Sure, why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone and surfs to a NASA page on the internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.

Within seconds, he receives an e-mail on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC-connected Excel spreadsheet with e-mail on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-colour, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturised HP LaserJet printer, turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."

"Well, that's exactly how many animals I've got," answered Bud. "So I guess you can take one of 'em if you want."

He watches the young man select the animal closest to him and looks on with some genuine consternation as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then Bud says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back that animal?"

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You're a bureaucrat working for a government agency," says Bud.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required," answered Bud. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; but you don't really know a thing about how working people make a living. You certainly don't know nothin' about cows, that's for dang sure."

"How can you say that?" said the exasperated politician.

"Well, you see, feller," answered Bud, "this here is a herd of sheep.

"Now, will you give me back my dog?"

A matter of definition

What is a Christian? A Christian is someone who goes to church. No, that can't be right. A Christian might well go to church, but going to church doesn't make someone a Christian.

Well a Christian is someone who lives a good life and tries to help others. No, that can't be right either. A Muslim could do that. Or a Buddhist. Or an atheist.

Then a Christian is someone who believes in God and believes the doctrine of the church. Well, not necessarily. Some people have been brought up in the doctrine of the church and they've not been Christians. They've been scoundrels.

Then what is a Christian? Here is a definition I like. A Christian is someone who knows Jesus, who loves Jesus and who serves Jesus.

Christianity isn't just a religion, it's a relationship. Before the Fall, Adam had fellowship with God in the garden. Then Adam sinned, and sin broke the connection. Jesus lived a perfect life and died to pay the price of sin, to make a way through Christ for man to come back into a personal relationship with God.

A Christian is someone who has realised that Jesus is alive. (Remember, the early Christians had trouble convincing people that Jesus was alive.) A Christian has had a meeting with Jesus in which he has given his life to Christ and Christ has changed his life, and continues to change it.

A Christian is someone who has realised he was a sinner without a Saviour, a sheep without a shepherd. A sheep who has chosen to come through the Door back into the sheepfold. A sinner who has come home.

The good news is that whosoever will may come.

Hoping for heaven?

I hear that some people around here are saying that it is impossible to know that you are going to heaven.

That's not true.

You can know that you are going to heaven without a shadow of a doubt. Not because of what you are or what you've done. Those things won't get you to heaven. But because of what Jesus did for you by dying in your place on an old rugged cross two thousand years ago; because you have believed it and received it and because you are trusting in His unshakeable promises. Look at the Scriptures, like John 3:36; 5:24; 10:27, 28; 14:1-3; Rom 10:9; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 John 2:3 - 5, and be encouraged.

I have a growing conviction that there two things that we ought to be doing in these days. The first is fulfilling the Great Commission: going into all the world and preaching the good news of the gospel.

The second is living in the light of eternity. It seems to me that there are a lot of Christians who know that their sins are forgiven, know that they are going to heaven, know that their future is secure, but who are living entirely for this life, with little or no thought of where they are going to be or what they are going to be doing in eternity. This life is short; eternity is a long time. This life is preparation for what's to come.

My friend Denny Hartford is an American, a Christian and a pro-life activist. He writes a regular blog. He gets more done in a day than I do in quite a bit longer than that (but then he's a few years younger than I am). Among other things, he helps out as a teaching pastor at a church in the city where he lives.

On Sundays, the church normally meets just once, as I understand. But recently he invited the congregation to join him on Sunday evenings in a series of studies based on a remarkable book called Heaven by an excellent Christian author named Randy Alcorn. What a wonderful idea for a church!

If there isn't anything like that at your church, why not start a similar study at home with your own family? I don't know if they will have the book at your local Christian bookstore, but I notice they have it at Amazon.

Some Christians believe that when they die, they are going to heaven for ever. Other Christians point out that there's going to be a new earth, and suggest, on the basis of Rev 21:1 - 3, that God's ultimate purpose is not to get people to heaven, but to get them to the point where He can come down to earth and dwell in the midst of His people. And where, they might ask, are you going to be when Jesus comes to earth a second time, as He promised (1 Thess 4:17; Jude 14)?

But if we talk about those things, it's going to have to be another time. . .

How you can prove the existence of God

When Frederick the Great asked for proof of the existence of God, someone said to him "Sir, the Jews." So the story goes.

The Old Testament tells how God made the Jews His own chosen nation. One thing He required of them was obedience. If they were not obedient, He said, He would scatter them through the nations of the earth. They were not obedient, and God kept His promise.

No other people have ever lost their nationhood and their land and retained their national identity. Within two generations, all the people who have lost their land have been assimilated into the nations around them. But after two thousand years of exile, the Jews are still Jews.

The same God who promised that He would scatter the Jews also promised in the Old Testament - not once, but multiple times - that He would bring them from the east, the west, the north and the south back to their own land.

The Jews are the only people in world history who, having lost their land and their statehood, have gone back to their own land and become a nation again, rebuilding the old cities, calling them by their old names, even speaking their own language. Israel became a nation again in 1948.

"Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once?" Isaiah asks in Isa 66:8. If it's Israel it can.

And how about this, in Amos 9:14, 15:

"I will bring back the captives of my people Israel;

They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them;

They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them;

They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them.

I will plant them in their land,

And no longer shall they be pulled up

From the land I have given them,"

Says the Lord your God.

The surrounding Arab nations have made war against Israel in 1948, in 1956, in 1967, in 1973. Each time Israel has been completely, hopelessly, utterly outnumbered. Each time Israel has fought back and won.

You can't explain the Jews without God.

Now God Himself challenges you to prove Him. See Isa 44:6 - 8:

"Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,

And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:

'I am the First and I am the Last:

Besides me there is no God.

And who can proclaim as I do?

Then let him declare it and set it in order for me,

Since I appointed the ancient people.

And the things that are coming and shall come,

Let them show these to them.

Do not fear, nor be afraid;

Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?

You are my witnesses,

Is there a God besides me?

Indeed there is no other Rock;

I know not one.'"

Notice "Who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order. . ." In other words, who can tell not only what has happened, but what is going to happen in the future, and be right every time? Only the One who can see the end from the beginning.

When He writes down centuries ahead of time what's going to happen and it happens just like He says, that's proof that God exists.

Another step towards assisted dying?

The battle to see assisted suicide legalised in the UK - a next step in the fight for the legalisation of euthanasia - rolls relentlessly on.

More than 100 Britons have travelled to Switzerland to end their lives at the Dignitas suicide facility. While suicide, or attempted suicide, is no longer an offence in the UK, assisting someone to commit suicide is. Any one of the people who accompanied their relative or friend to the Swiss suicide clinic could have been prosecuted in the UK for assisting suicide. No one was, because the Director of Public Prosecutions chose not to prosecute.

That was not enough for Debbie Purdy, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. She wanted to know for certain that if she went to Switzerland to commit suicide her husband would not be prosecuted if he went with her. Supported by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, now known as Dignity in Dying, she went to court seeking such an assurance.

Unsurprisingly, the High Court and the Appeal Court both refused to give her one. Rather surprisingly, the law lords, the highest court in the land, this week overturned the decisions of the lower courts and ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to state specifically under what circumstances the state will act if someone helps a friend or relative take their own life abroad.

Ms Purdy's lawyers hailed it as a significant step towards legalisation of assisted suicide in certain circumstances.

Critics said the ruling "drove a coach and horses" through the Suicide Act 1961, as a decision that people could not be prosecuted under certain circumstances would effectively change primary legislation without reference to Parliament.

Christian Concern for Our Nation pointed out that the law lords had ruled that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers the right to respect for private life, also covers a person's choice to end their life. They had ruled that a woman's right to decide when to end her life was protected in law.

Said CCFON: "The European Convention on Human Rights was originally drafted to enshrine the rights to live and be protected from abuse and harm by others. It has now been interpreted to protect the right to die - the very antithesis of the founders' intentions. . . Suicide was decriminalised in 1961, but that was very different from recognising a right to commit suicide as the House of Lords has done.

"It is the state's duty to protect God's creation and not to facilitate its destruction."

John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said on his blog that the judgment was dangerous because "It sacrifices the value of human life in the name of choice; it fails to balance sympathy for the relatives of a suicidal person with the need to affirm the worth of people with disability; and it discriminates against certain categories of vulnerable people."

He adds: "Assisting suicide is dangerous, unethical and unnecessary. It's dangerous because it sends out a signal to disabled people that they have less value than others. It's unethical because it is always wrong intentionally to kill an innocent human being. And it's unnecessary because medical treatment, good palliative care and/or personal support can overcome suicidal tendencies."

Labour MP David Winnick now says he hopes to introduce a bill to legalise assisted dying in the House of Commons.

Meanwhile, assisting suicide remains illegal in the UK - for now.

Christians needed: urgently

It's a sad thing to have to say, but the authorities in this nation appear to be determined that this nation's children will grow up to be sexually promiscuous.

The authorities don't care that children have sexual intercourse among themselves - even when it's illegal on grounds of age - so long as they use contraception. Free contraceptives, morning-after pills and abortions are readily available. Sex education in schools, which has little or no moral content, ensures that children know where to get free contraception and how to use it.

The Christian Institute found the Primary School Sex and Relationships Education Pack, recommended by East Sussex Council, which includes explicit descriptions of anal sex, oral sex, homosexuality and bisexuality, for use with children from seven years old and upwards.

It discovered a video advising pupils to "try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with," and teacher-led discussions with pupils on sadomasochism, bondage and sex toys.

An NHS leaflet called Pleasure advises school pupils that they have a "right" to an enjoyable sex life and that regular intercourse ("What about twice a week?") can be good for their cardiovascular health. It uses the slogan "An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away."

Steve Slack, of NHS Sheffield, one of the leaflet's authors, said it could encourage young people to delay losing their virginity until they are sure they will enjoy the experience. What kind of twisted logic says that telling youngsters of the pleasure of sex will encourage them not to have it?

The majority of parents apparently have no idea what their children are being taught in school, and many of them are not concerned. Currently parents have a right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons, but the Government is considering making the lessons compulsory for all pupils from the age of five.

This, according to one pro-family organisation, would give parents less control over the content of lessons because schools, being compelled by law to provide sex education, would have less incentive to consult parents.

The Family Education Trust has produced a new 52-page booklet called Too Much, Too Soon: The Government's plans for your child's sex education. It tells parents what is happening in sex education, explains the law, and considers the Government's proposals for change. It argues that young people do not need to be presented with a menu of sexual options from which they can make "informed choices." It says the whole matter needs to be approached with honesty, modesty and within a clear moral framework that shows a proper respect for parents and for marriage.

I consider that it is a brilliant piece of work and that every parent ought to have a copy. Printed copies can be ordered from Family Education Trust, Jubilee House, 19-21 High Street, Whitton, Twickenham (telephone 020 8894 2525). Better yet: you can read the whole booklet and download it free of charge from the trust's website (www.famyouth.org.uk).

Some worthwhile things are happening. There is a great organisation named Challenge Team UK (www.challengeteamuk.org) which sends teams of well trained young people into schools with presentations promoting saving sex until marriage, and is looking for more volunteers for training. The advantage of these teams, it seems to me, is that this is not adults preaching at children but young people talking to young people. Some 75,000 teenagers have already been reached. An organisation called Lovewise (www.lovewise.org.uk) goes into schools promoting chastity outside of marriage, and is also looking for more presenters.

Children will follow an example, whether it's a good one or a bad one. Youngsters in this nation are being bombarded with sex from every conceivable angle. The great tragedy is that the majority of them are not being reached with a godly alternative.

Christians, where are you?

'One of the least of these'

Casper ten Boom repaired watches. He had a watch shop on the Barteljorisstraat in Haarlem.

He was an old man, with a long white beard. Every morning and evening he would read from the Bible and lead family prayers in his home above the shop.

When the Germans overran Holland and Dutch Jews began to be sent off to the extermination camps, the house became a hiding place for Jews. The Dutch Resistance built a wall in a bedroom at the house, behind which the Jews could hide if the house were searched.

One day Germans stormed the house and the old man and some of his children were arrested. The chief interrogator at Gestapo headquarters seemed to wonder about the necessity for the old man's arrest. "You, old man!" he said. "I'd like to send you home. I'll take your word that you won't cause any more trouble."

"If I go home today," the old man replied, "tomorrow I will open my door again to any man in need who knocks."

His imprisonment continued. Ten days later he was dead.

How much good was achieved by the old man's reply? What could one old man do against the might of the Nazi machine?

Not much. But what Casper ten Boom did will be remembered in heaven. "Assuredly, I say to you," Jesus said, "inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

Contrary to what many believe, when Jesus spoke about "the least of these my brethren," He wasn't talking about Christians. He was talking about the Jews.

So which married lifestyle would you prefer?

I was reading an article by John Piper in which he described life in his family home as a boy.

I grew up, he wrote, in a home where my father was away for about two-thirds of each year. He was an evangelist. He held about twenty-five crusades each year ranging in length from one to three weeks. He would leave on Saturday, be gone for one to three weeks, and come home on Monday afternoon. I went to the Greenville airport hundreds of times. And some of the sweetest memories of my childhood are the smile on my father's face as he came out of the plane and down the steps and almost ran across the runway to hug me and kiss me (no skyways in those days).

This meant that my sister and I were reared and trained mostly by my mother. She taught me almost everything practical that I know. She taught me how to cut the grass without skippers and keep a checkbook and ride a bike and drive a car and make notes for a speech and set the table with the fork in the right place and make pancakes (notice when the bubbles form on the edges). She paid the bills, handled repairs, cleaned house, cooked meals, helped me with my homework, took us to church, led us in devotions. She was superintendent of the Intermediate Department at church, head of the community garden club, and tireless doer of good for others.

She was incredibly strong in her loneliness. The early sixties were the days in Greenville, SC, when civil rights were in the air. The church took a vote one Wednesday night on a resolution not to allow black people to worship in the church. When the vote was taken, she stood, as I recall, entirely alone in opposition. And when my sister was married in the church in 1963 and one of the ushers tried to seat some black friends of our family all alone in the balcony, my mother indignantly marched out of the sanctuary and sat them herself on the main floor with everyone else.

I have never known anyone quite like Ruth Piper. She seemed to be omni-competent and overflowing with love and energy.

But here is my point. When my father came home, my mother had the extraordinary ability and biblical wisdom and humility to honor him as head of the home. She was, in the best sense of the word, submissive to him. It was an amazing thing to watch week after week as my father came and went. He went, and my mother ruled the whole house with a firm and competent and loving hand. And he came, and my mother deferred to his leadership.

Now that he was home, he is the one who prayed at the meals. Now it was he that led in devotions. Now it was he that drove us to worship, and watched over us in the pew, and answered our questions. My fear of disobedience shifted from my mother's wrath to my father's, for there, too, he took the lead.

But I never heard my father attack my mother or put her down in any way. They sang together and laughed together and put their heads together to bring each other up-to-date on the state of the family. It was a gift of God that I could never begin to pay for or earn.

And here is what I learned - a biblical truth before I knew it was in the Bible. There is no correlation between submission and incompetence. There is such a thing as masculine leadership that does not demean a wife. There is such a thing as submission that is not weak or mindless or manipulative.

It never entered my mind until I began to hear feminist rhetoric in the late sixties that this beautiful design in my home was somehow owing to anyone's inferiority. It wasn't. It was owing to this: My mother and my father put their hope in God and believed that obedience to his word would create the best of all possible families - and it did.

Two minutes after reading John Piper's article, I picked up a newspaper and noticed that "a hardline feminist" had been appointed the UK Government's new chief spokeswoman on families. Dr Katherine Rake, the paper said, had long declared her intention not to support parents as they are, but to revolutionise their lives; wanting to change not just what child care the state provides, but who changes the nappies at home.

"It is only when men are ready to share caring and work responsibilities with women that we will be able to fulfil our true potential to form equal partnerships in which we have respect, autonomy and dignity," she was reported to have said. But a critic claimed that Katherine Rake's agenda was more about reversing sex roles than helping parents.

Dr Rake, said the paper, does not publicise her personal life, but is married. Her husband said he hoped he was a hands-on father, but refused to comment further on his wife's remarks. "I'll have to check with her," he said, "before saying anything."

Of the two married lifestyles - the married lifestyle described by John Piper and the one presumably recommended by Katherine Rake - which would you prefer?

Just for fun (1)

Did you hear about the plastic surgeon who sat in front of the fire and melted?

(If you don't appreciate this man's sense of humour, apologies.)

So do you believe it?

I expect you will have heard the suggestion. The suggestion, that is, that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, and that the apostle Paul added all that later, turning a Jewish teacher into the head of a new religion.

So did Jesus claim to be the Son of God? Yes He did.

He forgave sins (Mark 2:5 - 12; Luke 5:20 - 25). He accepted worship (Matt 8:2; 14:33).

Remember when Jesus was with His disciples in Caesarea Philippi and He asked His disciples who people said He was? Some said John the Baptist, they said; some Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. But who, said Jesus, do you say that I am? "And Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven'" (Matt 16:16, 17).

Remember when Jesus was talking with the unbelieving Jews about Abraham? Jesus told them "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM," using the name God used of Himself (Ex 3:14, 15). Some would dispute that Jesus was using God's name there, but the Jews understood what He meant all right. They took up stones to stone Him for what they saw as blasphemy. "But Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by" (John 8:58, 59).

Remember when Jesus was on trial before the Jewish authorities, how the high priest asked Him specifically "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed"? He answered "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:61, 62).

Jesus is eternal (John 1:1). He was there at creation (John 1:3; Gen 1:1; Col 1:16). He is one with the Father (John 17:11). He is the giver of eternal life (John 10:28).

Not only His words, but His miracles spoke of who He was. The Old Testament law, for instance, gave detailed instructions in Leviticus 13 and 14 of what was to happen if a Jew was healed of leprosy. But from the completion of the law of Moses up to the coming of Christ there is no record of a Jew being healed of leprosy. The rabbis taught that only the Messiah would be able to heal a Jewish leper. So Jesus healed one and sent him to the priest (Luke 5:12 - 16).

The very basis of the Christian gospel is that man, being a sinner, was unable to save himself, so God came in the form of His Son, lived a perfect life and gave His life so that man's sin might be forgiven.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory" (1 Tim 3:16).

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

Tolerance isn't what it's cracked up to be

Tolerance once meant putting up with something you didn't particularly like. It meant bearing with other people's views without necessarily agreeing with them. The word has been redefined.

New Tolerance says that all values, all beliefs, all men's opinions about what is truth and all lifestyles are equally valid. To criticise any of them is to be "intolerant." So people who believe in New Tolerance think Christianity intolerant. But in calling Christianity intolerant, they are not being tolerant. Which means that all beliefs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Tolerance, said James Kennedy, is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society, he said, that has blatantly, proudly violated all the commandments of God, there is one last virtue they insist on: tolerance for their immorality. (So if you say what they have done is wrong, they are not the villain: you are.)

There is a new civil right: a right for a person's feelings not to be hurt. If you criticise a person's conduct, you are hurting his feelings. You are intolerant. You are demonstrating hatefulness to him, and that is a "hate crime."

David Reagan says New Tolerance is not only turning society against evangelical Christians, but fuelling outright hatred and persecution of evangelicals.

The reason, of course, is simple, he says. Evangelicals stand on the word of God as their authority for all things, and because they do, they feel compelled to speak with moral indignation against the sins of society.

And society responds by shouting "Bigots!" Evangelicals are written off and publicly denounced as "Bible-thumpers," "red-neck zealots" and "self-righteous prudes."

Second, he says, New Tolerance has been adopted by many mainline Christian denominations, which has resulted in diluting their stand against the sins of society.

John 3:16 has been replaced as the central verse in these churches with Matthew 7:1, which says "Judge not, that you be not judged."

The result is. . . pastors are unwilling to denounce gambling, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, pornography, or any other societal evil.

Someone needs to point out to these preachers that Matthew 7:1 applies to motives - not to words and actions. God alone knows motives, but we can certainly judge words and actions against the standards of God's word. And, in fact, we are required to do so. The Bible tells Christians to test all things, ourselves included (2 Corinthians 13:5 and 1 John 4:1). And Jesus Himself commanded us to judge with righteous judgment (John 7:24).

Third, New Tolerance has resulted among mainline, liberal denominations in a growing acceptance of other religions as legitimate avenues to God and salvation.

The attitude is normally expressed in the following manner: "There are many roads to God because He has revealed Himself in many different ways." Because of this apostasy, many Christian leaders are now taking the position that it is wrong to send out missionaries because they violate the cultural sensitivities of foreign peoples and because they communicate the idea that there is something superior about the Christian message.

All of which makes a liar of Jesus, who said "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me" (John 14:6). It also makes a liar of the Apostle Peter, who proclaimed in Acts 4:12 that "there is salvation in no one else [but Jesus], for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

Time, says Kennedy, to stand up for Jesus Christ and show some backbone while we still have a place to stand.

Household salvation (3)

I wrote (here and here) about how I discovered that "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31), with its "you and your household" bit, was not some sort of spare promise, but a promise that contains a principle that you can see right through the Scriptures.

Ah, you say, but can you show me that it works? Is this something that you have just dreamed up, or can you prove that it works from personal experience?

Let me tell you what God did for me.

When I was converted to Christ, I was still a bachelor, but I had a father, a mother, a sister and a brother. After I accepted Christ, I was the only member of my family who had a personal relationship with Jesus. I spoke to my family about salvation in Christ, but it seemed like they just didn't want to know. At that time, I honestly believed that my family were no more likely and no less likely to come to Christ than anyone else.

Twenty years later, I was still the only member of my family with a personal relationship with Jesus. It was about that time that I realised that "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" was a promise I could depend on. I thought about it until I was sure I had understood it, then I claimed my family by faith. I continued to pray for them, but from that time I never once prayed for their salvation. I believed I had the promise.

After I prayed, I wondered how God would do it. Needless to say, He didn't do it the way I expected. Two years later, my sister was gloriously converted to Christ and filled with the Hoiy Spirit in South Africa, where she lived.

As time went on, my father was turned 80 and my mother was pushing 80, but I honestly believed it was impossible for them to die unconverted. When my father was 82, someone led him to Christ. I wasn't there. It wasn't my doing. It was just God being faithful to His promise.

On New Year's Day, 1993, my sister led my mother to Christ. My mother died in October the same year. She was living in a nursing home in Leamington Spa. My sister, who was now living in the UK, and I each got a phone call one morning telling us that if we wished to see my mother we should come quickly. It was mid-afternoon by the time we arrived. She was already gone, but we rejoiced that we believed we knew where she was.

That left my brother. He had his own business. He worked something like 16 hours a day and had time for nothing else. What happened to him was that he developed diabetes; then on top of that he developed kidney stones, to the extent that he was completely unable to work.

As he sat at home, he picked up a book of Bible readings that apparently I had given my parents as a Christmas present years before. It had turned up at his home because he had cleared up my parents' home when first they had moved to a care home. As he looked at it, he saw a verse describing Jesus as God's only begotten Son. Somehow he saw it, and believed.

"Well, I'm a Christian now, so I ought to go to church," he said. He went to a tourist information office near his home and asked for a list of churches in the area. He looked down the list, saw a Pentecostal church, remembered that my wedding had been in a Pentecostal church and he had been impressed by the pastor and the service, went to the church on the list and has been in fellowship there ever since.

(After he accepted Christ, he found his diabetes and his kidney stones were gone. Those were the things God used to bring him to Christ.)

One Friday morning the telephone rang at my home. It was my brother. "I just want to tell you I have found Christ," he said. That was my family complete. I can't tell you what a blessing that was.

Praying prayers that are powerful and effective

I was reading an excellent "how to" sermon on prayer. Said the author, Ray Pritchard:

We can talk about the content of prayer, such as adoration, thanksgiving, meditation, confession and petition.

We can talk about the posture of prayer, such as sitting, standing, hands uplifted, eyes open, eyes closed, walking, kneeling, and stretched out before the Lord.

We can talk about the associations of prayer, which means we can pray alone or in a small group or in a worship service or in a concert of prayer or over the internet or over the phone or by e-mail or in a handwritten letter.

We can talk about the style of prayer. It may be formal, informal, liturgical, written, recited, conversational, antiphonal, sentence prayers, "Thank you" prayers, "Lord, have mercy" prayers, short prayers, long prayers, prayers sung, prayers spoken, prayers written, prayers chanted, prayers offered spontaneously or prayers memorised.

We can talk about the places of prayer, such as in the morning, during your devotions, around the dinner table, in the car, on the phone, during a worship service, in the street, sitting in the pew, or at a ball game.

We can talk about the objects of prayer, such as confession and restoration, for physical or spiritual or emotional healing, for a financial need, for a broken relationship to be healed, for salvation, for spiritual growth, for the spread of the gospel, for a friend in need, for the leaders of our church, for the leaders of our nation, for our friends, and, yes, for our enemies.

Prayer may be as varied as the needs of the heart. The true measure of prayer is not its form or content or style or location or length or beauty of expression. The real question is, Does it come from the heart? Is it sincere? Are we truly seeking the Lord? If so, then we may claim the promise of James 5:16 that the prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective. . .

If we pray from the heart in Jesus' name, then the Father is pleased and he inclines his heart to hear us when we call on him.

Ray Pritchard has some good suggestions. He says. for instance, that some of us who know a little theology would do well to get an advanced degree in "kneeology." And a good question. What would happen in our churches if every day every member was prayed for by someone?

You can read the whole thing by clicking here.

Household salvation (2)

There was a time when I imagined that "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31), with its "you and your household" bit, was some sort of a spare promise in the Bible. But there came a day when I realised that it contains a principle you can see right the way through the Scriptures.

Jesus, after all, came to mend that which was broken. Not just broken individuals, but broken marriages, broken homes, broken relationships. His aim is not to see just isolated individuals who have a relationship with God, but families, loving and worshipping Him together.

When I seek to explain household salvation to people, they usually say something like "But it's not automatic, is it?" or "But people have to make their own decision, don't they?" Of course they do. A decision to follow Jesus is a personal choice.

But salvation is a gift. God can give it to whomsoever He will. The book of Ephesians says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." No man can come to Christ except the Father draw him. If that is the case, then even the willingness to accept Christ comes from Him.

Plainly not all families are united in Christ. So if "you and your household" is a promise, can it be that there are conditions attached to the promise?

I believe that there are. First, it is necessary to believe the promise. Second, it is necessary to claim the promise. Third, it is necessary for the believer to remain faithful. Clearly, it is not reasonable, having accepted Christ, to live all sorts of a life and expect one's household to come to faith.

I have heard it suggested from the pulpit that Paul and Silas said "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" to the Philippian jailor as a result of a word of knowledge specifically for the Philippian jailor, and that believers shouldn't claim that promise lest they be disappointed.

But I want to suggest to you, in view of the Scriptures I pointed out here, that we should expect whole families to be saved, and that in "you and your household" there is a principle that God is prepared to stand by.

The Chinese Christian Watchman Nee believed in household salvation. He tells in one of his books how, when he visited England, he called to see George Cutting, a well known evangelical at that time, who also believed in household salvation.[1] George Cutting, then an old man, had more than 80 in his family - sons, daughters-in-law, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Every one was saved.

Is that coincidence, or what?

More soon.

[1] Watchman Nee. The Good Confession, vol 2. New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, 1973, p113.

Time to take a stand?

A time of anti-Christian persecution is at hand, says the Church of England Newspaper. "The Government had better start building more prison space - for Christians and moral conservatives generally," it said in a recent editorial.

People were used to hearing of Christians sacked for daring to air any view which disapproved of homosexual sex. But the new Equality Bill and a Government bid to delete a free speech protection from a "homophobic hatred" law would lead to more intolerance of Christian views, it said.

The Equality Bill placed a duty on public bodies, like schools and police, to promote homosexual rights and gave Parliament the opportunity to strip away religious liberty protections from various discrimination laws, it said.

Christians, and Muslims and others who disagreed with the homosexual line, the paper said, were being told "to shut up and get into their closet - the gays are not tolerant of dissent and have got the state to crack down."

Which brings me to the case of Anand Rao. Although it may have nothing to do with homosexuality, it certainly seems to have to do with Christian persecution.

Mr Rao is 71 years old and a committed Christian. He has been a nurse for 40 years, in recent years in hospitals run by the University of Leicester NHS Trust. He decided to go on a training course organised by the Leicestershire and Rutland Organisation for the Relief of Suffering, and found his own funds to pay for the course.

During the course, in a role play situation to do with palliative care, Mr Rao was placed with a couple playing the part of man and wife. He was told the wife had a serious heart condition, a doctor had told her she would not live long and this had caused her stress. How would he advise them? He suggested to the couple - in a role play situation on a training course, notice - that going to church might ease her stress.

The course directors were dissatisfied with this and the course organiser reported him to his employer. He was suspended and later sacked - apparently for breaching the Nursing and Midwifery Council's code of conduct respecting a person's dignity.

Mr Rao, who is considering taking legal action against his former employer for religious discrimination, said he is staggered that someone who has given four decades to caring for people can be treated in the way he has.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, said "How is it possible that a nurse who has served the public for 40 years should find himself dismissed because in a training session he advised someone to go to church? To seek to censor and suppress this kind of language and belief is the first fruits of a closed society."

Time to kick up a fuss?

Household salvation (1)

A well known Bible verse says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). At least, that's how it's usually quoted. But that's not what it says. Or to be more accurate, that's not all that it says. It says in fact "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

I suppose I used to think it was a sort of a spare promise in the Bible. But the day came when I realised that that promise, with its "you and your household," contains a divine principle that you can see throughout the word of God.

Consider. The Bible tells how mankind became so desperately wicked that God decided to put an end to it. But Noah found grace in His sight. God told him to build an ark. When it was time to enter the ark, God said to Noah (Gen 7:1): "Come into the ark, you and all your household." The Bible says that Noah was a righteous man. It doesn't say anything about his family being righteous - but because of Noah, eight people were saved.

Abraham was God's friend. God made a covenant to bless him. The sign of the covenant was circumcision. Circumcision was not just for Abraham, but for his sons - not just for Isaac, but for Ishmael - and not just for his sons, but for his servants (Genesis 17). In short, for Abraham and all his household.

When it was time for the last of the 10 plagues in Egypt, the Israelites were instructed to slay a lamb and put its blood on the lintel and doorposts of their homes. That night, the firstborn in every household in Egypt would die, but the firstborn in each house covered with the blood would be saved. They were instructed to slay a lamb not for each individual, but for each household (Ex 12:3. 7, 13).

Jericho was under condemnation. Everything in Jericho was to be destroyed. But Rahab sought the Lord. She was told that she and everyone with her in her house would be saved. It doesn't say anything about her household having sought the Lord. But because of Rahab, Rahab and all her household were preserved. You can see the promise in Josh 2:18, 19 and its fulfilment in Josh 6:17, 22, 23, 25.

Ah, you say, but all that was in the Old Testament. Come with me to the New Testament. Zacchaeus was a chief tax collector, and a money-grabber. When Jesus went to his house, something happened. "I give half of my goods to the poor," said Zacchaeus, "and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold."

"Today," replied Jesus, "salvation has come to this house" (Luke 19:9). What a strange thing to say. He didn't say that salvation had come to the man, but to the house.

Cornelius, a Roman centurion, saw a vision of an angel. "Send men to Joppa," said the angel, "and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved" (Acts 11:13, 14).

When Paul and his colleagues preached to Lydia in Philippi, Lydia and her household were baptised (Acts 16:14, 15). When the jailor in the jail at Philippi asked "What must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas told him: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31 - 34). And so it happened.

There are other examples of households being converted, like the household of Crispus (Acts 18:8) and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16).

When Joshua was an old man, he called all Israel together and reminded them of all that God had done for them. It was time for them to choose whether they would serve the God of Israel or whether they would serve other foreign gods. "But as for me and my house," said Joshua, "we will serve the Lord" (Josh 24:15).

More soon.

Why are atheists so aggressive?

Why are atheists so aggressive these days, what with books by Richard Dawkins, posters on the sides of buses and the formation of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies to support atheist students?

I have some ideas on the matter, but not being totally convinced of the reason, I'd like to leave the question open. Somebody supposed it was because atheists, while content to pooh-pooh the idea of a God, were irked because they were finding it increasingly difficult to counter the claims of intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design don't speak of a God, but do suggest that the physical and biological systems we see around us are best explained as having an intelligent cause.

Francis Crick and James Watson, the scientists who discovered the structure of DNA, were, I understand, both atheists. They had a desire to show that the mysterious phenomena of life could be explained in terms of physics and chemistry. In discovering the structure of DNA, which I understand is found in every cell in the body, they discovered something incredibly complex. So complex, in fact, that it must have had an intelligence behind it.

DNA contains information. Someone has said that in just a pinpoint of DNA you can find as much information as in four complete 30-volume sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Information, from where I'm sitting, can't come from evolution, but only from an intelligence.

So when they discovered something so amazingly complex, did Crick and Watson cease to be atheists? Evidently not.

I have a theory about atheists. I suggest that an atheist is not an atheist because he can't believe, but because he won't believe. I suppose that atheists are not atheists because of evidence or the lack of it, but because of hardness of heart.

Christianity and science are not necessarily opposed. Some Christians are scientists, and some scientists are Christians.

But beware. Some Christians believe in evolution. How can you be a Christian and believe in evolution? Only by disbelieving the account of creation in Genesis. Here's the problem: if you believe the account of creation in Genesis is untrue, how do you know the rest of the Bible is true?

Here's something to bear in mind as you think about these things. Mark 10 tells how the Pharisees were disputing with Jesus about the question of divorce. In verses 6 - 8, Jesus says: "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, so then they are no longer two, but one flesh." He was quoting from the first two chapters of Genesis.

Jesus believed in the Genesis account.

How about this for a church?

John the apostle says in his first epistle "By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (1 John 3:16). This is usually interpreted to mean that we ought to give our lives for the brethren if we are required to do so.

But it does not say that we ought to give our lives for the brethren if we are required to do so. It says we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. So here's the question: have you laid down your life for the brethren?

Selwyn Hughes writes that in Pusan, Korea, he came across the only church in all his travels where a commitment was made by every member to place the interests of the other members before their own.[1] The atmosphere in that church, he said, was the most wonderful he had ever experienced in over 40 years of ministry.

The minister there told him that whenever someone joined that church, either through conversion or moving into the community from elsewhere, all the other members gathered round the new member and together recited these words:

We covenant to love you with the love of the Lord Jesus Christ - the love that puts your interests as a priority. Nothing you do will stop us loving you. If your actions dishonour Christ, we will tell you so, but in a spirit of love. We will pray for you daily by name. Anything we have is at your disposal. We will honestly tell you how we feel about the level of your spiritual maturity from time to time. If this means pain for each of us, we will trust our relationship enough to take that risk, realising that in "speaking the truth in love we grow up in every way into Christ who is the head." We are committed to you because of what God has designed us to be in His loving creation.

Isn't that beautiful?

[1] Selwyn Hughes. Every Day with Jesus, January/February 2009. Farnham, Surrey: CWR, 2008.

Such amazing grace

When Jesus was arrested, Peter was afraid. So much so, that he denied that he even knew Him.

When Peter realised what he had done, he wept bitterly (Matt 26:75). He had meant to do so much for Jesus. Now he'd made a mess of it all. He wouldn't be able to do much for Jesus now.

When the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week after the Crucifixion, they saw an angel. "He is risen!" the angel said. "He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go and tell his disciples - and Peter - that he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he said to you" (Mark 16:6, 7).

And Peter. So Peter wasn't discounted, cast away, forgotten. (Soon, at Pentecost, after his restoration, Peter would preach and see 3,000 converted. But Peter didn't know that yet.)

When the risen Jesus appeared to a group of the disciples on the shore of Lake Galilee, they ate with Him. When they had eaten, Jesus said to Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?"

"Yes, Lord; you know that I love you."

"Feed my lambs.

"Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?"

"Yes, Lord; you know that I love you."

"Tend my sheep.

"Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?"

"Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

"Feed my sheep" (John 21:15 - 17).

Why did Jesus ask him three times? Peter understood. He was asking him three times because he had denied Him three times. Peter had failed, and that failure had to be dealt with. But not a word of condemnation. Not a word of reproof.

Our failures have to be dealt with too. Sometimes it hurts. But not a word of condemnation. What grace.