Thought from the Day

One reason why obedience matters for the Christian

2011-12-14T16:08:00.002Z

Over in American Christian Reformed blog-land there’s been an ongoing debate recently about the differences between, and connections between, justification and sanctification (that is sanctification in the progressive sense rather than the positional sense – that’s a whole other debate!)

Up until now the main protagonists in this conversation have been Tullian Tchividjian and Kevin DeYoung, but in the last couple of days David Murray has also joined the fray. I won’t rehearse all the points of difference that have emerged on both sides, suffice to say that my sympathies tend to lie with DeYoung and Murray rather than Tchividjian, even though Tchividjian has many good things to say!

Murray’s most recent article has been particularly helpful. He greatly appreciates Tchividjian’s definition of justification - that it's the completed obedience of Christ and not our obedience that secures our legal standing before God. But he also highlights that sanctification, though connected to justification, is different in crucial ways. Sanctification does involve effort on our part, a striving to obey God.

A failure to recognise and emphasise this can actually lead away from a deeper experience of God's love in our hearts and lives.

Christ’s obedience is all that matters for our legal standing before God (our justification), and without doubt dwelling on what God has done for us in Christ by justifying us will remind us of how much he loves us, but our obedience also comes in to play as regards our felt relationship with God – in other words the more we obey God the more we will experience of God’s love in our hearts and lives. Murray quotes John 14:21 and 23 to back this up.

So we should work hard at our sanctification (in reliance upon God’s help by his Spirit) not in order for God to accept us (we have acceptance through faith in Christ), but because firstly God is glorified by our increasing obedience, and secondly the reward for us is an ever greater depth of the felt experience of God’s love.

Murray’s concern is that Tchividjian ends up shortcutting the need for diligent obedience to God’s word in order to experience God’s love, by arguing that our justification in Christ alone guarantees that we will experience such love.

Have a read of the article at http://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/12/14/does-jesus-respond-to-our-obedience-with-love/ – David Murray draws it all together far more eloquently than I can!

Passion Hymn

2011-04-14T16:39:00.004+01:00

I'm not entirely sure why, but today I found myself penning the words to a song, a hymn even. As Easter approaches, my thoughts, Bible readings and prayers, particularly as a pastor, are inevitably turning more and more to the cross. And this morning I felt compelled to put those thoughts, readings and prayers in to verse. I'm hardly an accomplished poet, as you'll see below, but my prayer is that the following lines would turn your thoughts and prayers to what Jesus did on the cross for all who will trust in him.

The tune to which I have set these lines can be found here.

1. I’ll sing of love divine,

My Saviour’s love to me,

As at the appointed time

He looked to Calvary.

And set himself to take that path

That led to suffering God’s wrath.

2. Sweat drops of blood he bleeds.

What pain did he foresee?

With his Father he pleads;

“Let this cup pass from me.”

Yet the Father’s judgement he will face

For sinners in such need of grace.

3. Alone, deserted by

All those he called his friends.

When accusations fly

No answer back he sends.

So “Crucify” goes up the cry,

The King of life condemned to die.

4. Struck, spat on, led away.

Mocked even as he hangs.

“Forgive them” he will say

E’en through his own death pangs.

He is the Christ, on the cross he’ll stay

‘Til he’s paid the price that I should pay.

5. “It’s Finished” now he cries,

The maker bows his head.

And as his body dies,

So dies my fear and dread.

For he has suffered on that tree

Sin’s penalty and curse for me.

6. So I will lift my voice

And praise my Saviour King.

For he has brought such joys

As make me long to sing

Of all his wondrous love and grace

Shown by his dying in my place.

Where do you go to see God's glory?

2010-11-18T12:53:00.001Z

In church on Sunday mornings I’m preaching through the book of Ephesians, and so far I’ve found it absolutely fantastic. Not my sermons necessarily, but the things I’ve discovered about the glorious plan of God in this universe.

My original plan when I took up the pastorate in Ingleton was to preach through the Gospel of Luke. However, just a couple of weeks before starting I changed my mind. I decided I’d hold off on starting on Luke until Christmas and find another book to preach through in the meantime. I had no idea which book to go for, but plumped for Ephesians. My only reason for doing this was that I already had a sermon that I knew I could use on the first Sunday (Ephesians 1:1-14), and that I should be able to get through the rest of the book by mid December. What I hadn’t realised was just how incredibly appropriate Ephesians would be for a new chapter in the life of the church here.

From the middle of Ephesians 2 to the middle of Ephesians 4 the church, the bringing into existence of the church, the nature of the church, the definition of the church, the role of the church, the importance of the church, the centrality of the church in God’s plans and purposes, the body of Christ, shines out in Paul’s letter. I confess that I had never understood just how much the church matters until God began speaking to me through these chapters.

Think about this statement:

The church, God’s people made one in Christ, is the place in which God primarily chooses to display his wisdom and glory (Ephesians 3:10, 21).

I’m inclined to look at the stars, or the mountains and lakes and use that as a springboard for meditating on God’s glory displayed. I’m convinced that there’s nothing wrong with doing that, Psalm 8 springs to mind. But the fact is that if we really want to enlarge our vision of the glory of God through considering his works that he has done, then we need to think more deeply on what he has done in redeeming and uniting a people of all temperaments, abilities, and nationalities in Jesus Christ his son.

The church is God’s primary means of displaying his glory. Think carefully about that, because it means that the church really matters.

Busy Days

2010-11-18T12:17:00.001Z

You'd be forgiven for thinking that "thoughtfromtheday" had died a quiet death recently, or at least gone into an interminable hibernation. Well, it has been hibernating, but it hasn't died!

The last few months just happen to have been incredibly busy for myself as I wrote a dissertation in July, moved house in August, started work as a Pastor in September, and then to top it all off got married in October. Blogging has been somewhat relegated down the list of priorities!

Hopefully though thoughts will once again begin flowing from God's Word, into my mind, down to my heart, out through my fingers, and onto the web.

Incarnational Living - What's that about then?

2010-06-10T21:49:00.003+01:00

I need your help. I have to write a dissertation. By the end of July. Do you know something, even going through my first year Greek textbook has proved more appealing during the last week than seriously knuckling down to writing 10,000 words in order to finish my theology degree. But write a dissertation I must!

So then you ask, what will this dissertation be upon? Well, I'm glad you asked. It's on incarnational mission, incarnational living. What is this incarnational living, and more precisely, what sort of theological foundation, if any, has it got? These thoughts will occupy my mind for the next eight or nine weeks. They will also occupy any blogs that I may happen to write.

Here's a question to get the ball rolling though: What was the purpose of the incarnation? Why did it happen? Why did the eternal Son of God take human flesh? Why did he become a man?

I don't know how many people visit this blog, but I'd like to hear your answers, whoever you are, so please leave them in the comments box and we'll see if we can come to some sort of consensus. Hopefully a biblical one!

Why did God become a human being?

Grace is not a "thing"

2010-02-18T11:17:00.000Z

Spotted this Q&A on the Gospel Coalition website today. It highlights a right and a wrong way of thinking about grace - you can't separate it from Jesus Christ. Very helpful stuff.

"Christ Clothed in the Gospel"

The current issue of TableTalk magazine has a brief interview with Sinclair Ferguson inspired by the forthcoming release of his new book, By Grace Alone. The third Q&A just may revolutionize the way you understand grace:

In the preface to the book, you write that grace is not a “thing.” What do you mean by this statement?
It is legitimate to speak of “receiving grace,” and sometimes (although I am somewhat cautious about the possibility of misusing language) we speak of the preaching of the Word, prayer, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper as “means of grace.” That is fine, so long as we remember that there isn’t a thing, a substance, or a “quasi-substance” called “grace.” All there is is the person of the Lord Jesus — “Christ clothed in the gospel,” as Calvin loved to put it. Grace is the grace of Jesus. If I can highlight the thought here: there is no “thing” that Jesus takes from Himself and then, as it were, hands over to me. There is only Jesus Himself.
Grasping that thought can make a significant difference to a Christian’s life. So while some people might think this is just splitting hairs about different ways of saying the same thing, it can make a vital difference. It is not a thing that was crucified to give us a thing called grace. It was the person of the Lord Jesus that was crucified in order that He might give Himself to us through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Belonging

2010-02-04T15:34:00.001Z

Does a sense of belonging matter to you? I suspect it does. Even though we live in a very mobile culture in the UK most of us have somewhere that we identify as home – you only have to look at my “A Bit About Me” profile on this page to know that I do! So then, where do you belong? Where’s home?

I’m reading through Luke’s gospel at the moment and the other day I reached chapter 9 verses 57-62. My ESV entitles these verses “The Cost of Following Jesus”. I think my ESV may have missed something though. I’m not sure these verses are only, or even primarily, about cost, they’re about home. They’re about belonging.

The verses begin with someone saying to Jesus, “I will follow you wherever you go.” Jesus then starts talking about foxes and birds. Not an obvious response to the man’s declaration, so why this reference to the local wildlife? He’s contrasting them with himself – they have a home in this world, their holes and nests, Jesus does not. They belong here, he doesn’t.

Jesus then asks someone else to follow him. Jesus, no doubt knowingly, has made this request of a man whose father has just died. Given the circumstances therefore the man’s response seems perfectly reasonable, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” Jesus replies, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Why on earth would Jesus say that to this man? Does Jesus really expect us not to bury our dead parents and instead follow him? One answer to this question is no, Jesus doesn’t really expect us to neglect a parent’s burial, what he’s doing is using hyperbole (exaggeration) to make a point. Following Jesus is more important than anything else.

There is another way of explaining this reply of Jesus though. This second encounter has to be read in the light of the first one. This is a passage about where you belong. In the first encounter this world is described as a place where Jesus has no home, in the second we discover that it’s a world characterised by death. Jesus actually says to this man “Leave the dead to bury their own dead.” How can a dead person bury another dead person? The point Jesus is making is not so much to do with the cost of leaving this world behind, but rather that this world is a place of death, even those who are physically living are in a real sense dead – do you want to belong to a world characterised by death? Is that what you want to call home? Jesus then tells the man that he should “proclaim the kingdom of God.” The inference is that though this world of death is not Jesus’ home, there is a different place Jesus calls home, and it is characterised by life – it’s the kingdom of God. Be a part of that kingdom.

Finally we come to the third encounter and, as in the first encounter, we have a man approaching Jesus and saying that he will follow him. Notice though the condition he places on following Jesus, “let me first say farewell to those at my home.” Again Jesus’ reply is often explained in terms of counting the cost of following him. Fair enough, there is cost involved, but is that what Jesus is primarily talking about when he says, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” The problem for this third man is that he thinks he can follow Jesus while calling this world (a world of death remember) home. If this world is home, you’re dead, and if you’re dead you’re not fit for the kingdom of God.

I think that an unhelpful way to apply this last verse in particular would be to say that if you fail or struggle in any way in carrying out the work of God’s Kingdom, if you don’t plow in a perfectly straight line, then you’re not fit for the kingdom and God won’t accept you into it. No, what Jesus is saying in these verses is that where you consider your home to be matters. It matters a lot. If it’s this world then you’re dead, and if you’re dead you’re not fit for God’s Kingdom. But if you’ve been given life, a gift of God’s grace, then God’s Kingdom is your home, and you should consider it to be such.

If you’re a Christian look forward to where you belong, don’t look back longingly at a world of death as if it were your home.

Help from the Aged

2010-01-15T15:17:00.001Z

I head back down to Wales and my final semester at WEST on Monday, but I was reminded that before I went I needed to visit an old lady in her 90’s from my home church who is now confined to a care home. She can no longer get out to church, her mobility is greatly reduced, she has to live with many of the problems and difficulties that come with old age. You might argue that she would have every reason to be pretty downbeat about life. She’s not. She’s easily one of the most encouraging Christians I know. She wanted to know all my latest news, and when she said she’d pray concerning each and every thing I told her about I have absolutely no doubt that she will. She then proceeded to give me a whole list of reasons why she’s thankful to God. Thankful for the health she has, thankful for her carers in the home, thankful for everyone who ever makes time to visit her, thankful for her Saviour, and for whatever small opportunities she has to serve him still.

She showed me a booklet that she’s been given by the manageress at the home. The booklet is full of blank pages with titles at the top such as “Childhood”, “Education”, “Marriage”, and “Religion”. The idea is that each of the residents fill in their booklet as fully as they can. New carers at the home are then given each resident’s self-completed booklet to read. It gives the new carers the opportunity to find out about the people they are caring for, I think it’s a fantastic idea. My friend was keen that I should look at what she’d written, particularly under “Religion”. In her shaky hand she’d written out her testimony to the fact that she’d come to know Jesus as her Lord and Saviour some fifty or so years earlier. Her greatest concern was that any employee at the home who picked up her booklet would read of what Jesus had done for her, and could do for them. She also knits various items for any carers who have baby children or grandchildren. All because she cares for those who care for her. What an example.

I guess most of you reading this are of the same generation as myself, the generation of facebook, twitter, blogs, youtube, of modern technology and the exciting worldwide online community. We can sometimes forget all about the older generation who know nothing much of any of these things. I’m all too guilty of it myself, but I’m so glad I went to that old people’s home this morning. I don’t think I’ll ever emulate my friends knitting prowess, but by God’s grace I hope I will emulate her radiant love for Jesus, now and in my old age.

Zerubabbel son of who?

2010-01-14T11:14:00.004Z

The Bible throws up all sorts of characters who might at first glance seem pretty insignificant. Take for example all those guys mentioned in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus. Half of the list mentions men who you've probably never heard of. The bit from Adam to David is full of well known Bible characters like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, even Boaz. But then after King David Luke takes us off, via one of David’s sons called Nathan, through a list of men that just don’t appear anywhere else on the pages of the Bible. This list goes on through the unknowns, over hundreds of years, all the way down to Jesus, great David’s greater son. As far as I’m aware, what I’ve just stated is entirely true. Apart that is from one notable exception - Zerubabbel. So who on earth was Zerubabbel, and why do I say that he is the exception in Luke’s post David list?

You can read about Zerubabbel in the Old Testament books written around the time of the Jews return from exile in Babylon/Persia. What you find out is that he was the governor of Judah at this time. Do a bit more digging and you discover that he was also descended from royalty. His grandfather was Jechoniah, and Jechoniah was the last king of Judah before the Babylonian invasion, the invasion and resulting exile that was God’s judgement on a people who had turned their back on him. So Zerubabbel was a direct descendant of King David. He wasn’t a king himself, but he was in the line of kings.

Another thing about Zerubabbel is that he’s given a wonderful promise by God. At the end of Haggai God promises Zerubabbel that a day is coming when he will overthrow his enemies, he will overthrow evil, he will show who’s really king. In other words God will show that he himself is King. And God also says that on that day he will make Zerubabbel like a signet ring.

Now what’s a signet ring got to do with anything?

Roughly seventy years earlier, just before Judah and their king Jechoniah (that’s Zerubabbel’s granddad remember) were taken off in to exile, God said this to Jechoniah, “As I live, declares the LORD, though Jechoniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off”,(Jer. 22:24). A signet ring was a symbol of a King’s authority and it was given to someone by the King to show that they had been entrusted with the King’s authority. Such was the case with the kings of Israel/Judah. They were to rule both under, and with, God’s authority. That rule and authority had been taken away though during the time of Jechoniah. God had ripped away the authority of the Jewish king, due to his misuse of that authority. He ripped it away by sending the Babylonian empire to crush the land and take the people and their monarch into exile. This was a huge blow to the Jewish people on many levels, but one particular way in which it was a blow was that it seemingly extinguished the possibility of God’s promise of a Messiah King being fulfilled.

The promise of the Messiah King was given way back during the reign of King David. God had promised that one of David’s offspring would reign over a Kingdom that would have no end (2 Sam. 7). He would be God’s ultimate King, the one, it could be said, from whom the signet ring would never be removed. With the exile that seemed like a dashed hope, no chance of a great Messiah King now. But then God says to Zerubabbel, “When I show who’s really King, when I decisively defeat my enemies, when I overthrow the powers of evil, I will make you like a signet ring. I will give you rule and authority.”

So what became of Zerubabbel? Did he become a glorious King? No, he never became a king, he was only ever governor of Judah. But God’s promise to him showed that God had not forgotten his earlier promise to King David. He would send a King who would establish an everlasting throne and Kingdom, who would defeat the powers of evil, and who would reign forevermore. God’s promise to King David and governor Zerubabbel is fulfilled in Jesus. By putting Zerubabbel in his list of Jesus’ ancestors, by putting him amongst that list of unknowns, Luke is showing us that God does not forget his promises.

The King did arrive as promised from the line of David and Zrubabbel. He defeated the powers of evil on the cross (Col. 2:15), he rose again, and now he reigns, having been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). Christ is the longed for King!

The Loving Father

2009-12-09T11:30:00.004Z

Every now and again I read a quote in a book that just seems to leap off the page in front of me. This morning it happened twice while I was reading the same book, “The Discipline of Grace” by Jerry Bridges.

The first was a quote from Charles Hodge in his commentary on Romans. Read it slowly and carefully.

“The great difficulty with many Christians is that they cannot persuade themselves that Christ (or God) loves them; and the reason why they cannot feel confident of the love of God, is, that they know they do not deserve his love, on the contrary, that they are in the highest degree unlovely. How can the infinitely pure God love those who are defiled with sin, who are proud, selfish, discontented, ungrateful, disobedient? This, indeed, is hard to believe. But it is the very thing we are required to believe, not only as the condition of peace and hope, but as the condition of salvation. If our hope of God’s mercy and love is founded on our own goodness or attractiveness, it is a false hope. We must believe that his love is gratuitous, mysterious, without any known or conceivable cause, certainly without the cause of loveliness in its object; that it is, in short, what it is so often declared to be in the Bible, analogous to (comparable to) the love of a parent for its child. A father’s or mother’s love is independent of the attractiveness of its object, and often in spite of its deformity.”

When we doubt God’s love for us because we think there is something about us that makes us unloveable in his sight, we do God a disservice. God does not love us because of what we’re like, he loves us in spite of what we’re like, and he gives us his Son as proof.

The second quote comes from John Owen. As Bridges points out, Owen was not soft on sin, he took it extremely seriously. Here is what Owen said about the Christian’s attitude towards God’s love in “Communion with God”.

“The greatest sorrow and burden you can lay on the Father, the greatest unkindness you can do to him is not to believe that he loves you.”

I find those words to be both humbling, and tremendously reassuring.

Here’s Bridges comments on what Owen said;

“Does that sentence surprise you? Would you have expected Owen to say that the greatest sorrow and burden we can lay on the Father is to commit some scandalous sin? Isn’t that the way we tend to think of God, more as our Judge than as our Father? That is because we do not keep the gospel constantly before us. Owen was definitely not soft on sin, but he was more concerned that we keep before us the gospel: the love of God revealed in His Son Jesus Christ.”

Because You're Worth It?

2009-12-08T23:01:00.004Z

I know it’s not Christmas yet, but it’s getting close. Close enough for me to start preparing for the sermon I’ve got to preach on 20^th December. I’ve decided to go with Luke 1:26-38 where the angel Gabriel comes to Mary and tells her that she’s going to have a baby, and she’s to call him Jesus. Now I’m not going to give the whole sermon away because the chances are some of you reading this will be in church the morning I preach it. However, read on for something that’s struck me from verses 28-30 that I’d not noticed before.

I preached this passage on a camp during the summer, and I have to confess that I got at least one thing wrong. In verse 28 Gabriel appears to Mary with a message. In verse 29 Mary is troubled, or as many versions have it, “greatly troubled”.

Why was Mary troubled? In the summer my answer was that she must have been scared because there’s an angel stood in front of her and that would be a pretty frightening thing. It sounds feasible at least! But now, I don’t think that’s the answer to the question, "Why was Mary troubled?" Verse 29 says not that Mary was greatly troubled at the appearance of an angel, but, “at the saying”. It wasn’t what Gabriel looked like, it was what Gabriel said.

So what were the troubling words that God’s messenger Gabriel said?

“Greetings, O favoured one, the Lord is with you.”

Now I don’t know what you think, but those don’t seem to be particularly troubling words do they? Why would anyone be troubled by being told that God had favoured them, and was with them? That’s good news isn’t it?

So why was Mary troubled then? Why did she need to be told that she shouldn’t be afraid, v30? What is it about those words that’s got her so worried?

This is where a little bit of Greek comes in handy. The word translated “troubled” or “greatly troubled” in v29 is the Greek word dietarachthe. It means greatly perplexed, perplexed to the point of being troubled.

When Mary heard those words, “Greetings, O favoured one, the Lord is with you”, her instant reaction was one of, “surely that can’t be right, surely these words can’t be meant for me, it doesn't make sense."

We live in a culture that likes to tell us, “You’re worth it”, and that if you don’t think “You’re worth it” then you need to work on your self esteem, because really you are.

That’s not what Mary felt though, her reaction to Gabriel’s message was not, ”Well that makes perfect sense. Of course God has favoured me, and is present with me, I’m worth it!” She was perplexed and troubled because she knew she wasn’t worth it – there was no discernable reason as to why God would favour her in any particular way.

I think Mary’s attitude was absolutely correct. She was not worthy of God’s favour, so the angel’s words should in so many ways have been perplexing and troubling to her. It doesn’t appear to add up. How could God favour her?

So how does God, through the angel Gabriel, deal with Mary’s troubled state of mind and heart? Will he find some virtue in Mary to justify his favour towards her? No. Will he say “actually, you’re right, you don’t deserve it, I’ll go and find someone else to bless”? No.

The reply is simple and to the point in v30, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God.” Read that sentence with emphasis on the word “have”.

Because God is a God of grace, a God who gives out undeserved favour and blessing, he can show favour, he can show grace, to whoever he pleases. Our failings won’t get in the way of that because they’re dealt with in Christ.

God is gracious to those who know they don’t deserve it. And to those who are perplexed and troubled by the fact that they don’t deserve it, he says that in Christ, “you have found favour with God”.

The good old glory days

2009-12-05T18:04:00.006Z

I’ve recently been spending a lot of time in the book of Haggai. What I’ve discovered there has been genuinely thrilling, I’ve been hugely encouraged by reading this apparently obscure Old Testament prophet from around the time when the Jews were rebuilding God’s temple after returning from exile.

However, here’s a sentence that sounds anything but encouraging. In fact it sounds downright depressing. Here are some words from Haggai 2:3, “Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes?”

That sentence comes to the Jews as they were attempting to rebuild the temple, which is what God had told them to do, and what are they told by God? “It’s a bit rubbish compared with the last one isn’t it?!” The temple was the place where God said he would live amongst his people, but compared with the previous model it wasn’t shaping up quite so well.

The New Testament equivalent of the temple is the church in union with Jesus Christ. Have a look at Ephesians chapters 2 and 3 to see where I got that from. So the church in Christ is the place where God promises to dwell.

Now then, here comes my point. How do you view the church? Often I hear people bemoaning the fact that the church is not what it used to be. They love church history, and they hold up today’s churches and compare them, unfavourably, with whatever period in church history they consider to have been the best. Dare I say that they get trapped in the past, and in the “glory” days?

What does God think of that attitude? Well, for all those of you who find that attitude about as helpful as a blamonche walking stick, let me say that at least in part God would probably agree with their assessment. Often the present day church does look a bit of a mess compared with the best from history. But I still don’t think it’s a helpful attitude to take.

By all means consider the best examples of the church from history, but don’t dwell on it to the point of despair in the present. Don’t do that because that’s not what God does with the Jews in the rest of Haggai 2. In the rest of Haggai 2 God tells the Jews that he dwells with them even in their rubbish looking temple. And he tells them just how glorious the temple will end up being at the end of history. That is the temple that consists of Jesus Christ and his people in union together, the glorious dwelling place of God that you are already a part of if you’ve trusted in Jesus Christ.

Some very important grammar

2009-12-04T16:06:00.007Z

The other day I read a very interesting sentence in a book about preaching. It was in the context of urging people to live out the Christian life. The sentence went something like this, "the imperative must always be grounded in the indicative."

Now I will be totally honest with you. If I had read that sentence three years ago I would not have understood it. The first reason why I would not have understood is that three years ago I hadn't got much of an idea of what imperatives and indicatives were. I wasn't taught grammar at school, thankfully I have been at Bible college. Secondly, that little sentence contains a truth about the Christian life, and links two aspects of the Christian life, that I had previously missed, or at least not clearly understood.

So first let me tell you what you will already know, if you know grammar.

An imperative is used when a command or request is given to someone or something. It says what you must and must not do.

The indicative is used for factual statements about what someone or something is. It describes what you are.

So what has this got to do with the Christian life then? Actually an awful lot.

A lot of people think of Christianity as a whole lot of dos and don'ts (you can insert your own list of dos and don'ts here). What they all have in common is that they are imperatives. Commands, requests. If you keep the imperatives, that makes you a Christian, if you don't, you're not.

If you are a Christian though, you know that you didn't become one by observing all the dos and don'ts. You couldn't keep all the imperatives, so you asked God to forgive you and trusted in Jesus who kept them for you. You put your faith in Christ, and his work, his work only, in order to be saved.

So far so obvious to many Christians.

Then something strange often happens.

Though we know that we are not brought in to God's family (saved) by keeping the imperatives, we seem to thinks that God will disown us if we don't keep them perfectly from the day of our conversion onwards. Too often we approach the living out of the Christian life as if it is just a whole list of imperatives. Pray more, read your Bible more, witness more, love people more, go to more meetings. Be more holy. Woe betide if you don't!

Now let me be clear here - I'm not an antinomian. In other words I'm not someone who thinks we can ignore God's law (God's imperatives) because God will just forgive us anyway. No, no, no, no, no. God expects us to make every effort to please him, and I would expect any Christian to want to do exactly that, to please God.

But here's where the problem is. Is our observance of the law, of the imperatives, what keeps us in God's good books? Is that what stops him disowning us? Certainly not.

Now to the indicative.

The indicative is a factual statement about what someone or something is. It is what you are. The Bible describes the Christian as a new creation, in Christ. So if you have put your faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of your failure to keep the imperatives, that means that the indicative that applies to you is that you are a new creation in Jesus. That is who you now are, and that is the only grounds of your acceptance before God from the day you first trusted him, up until today, and on in to eternity.

That indicative about who you now are should transform the way you view the imperatives of God's word. No longer do those commands need to be seen as a harsh taskmaster, constantly berating you for your failure to keep them, but as a God given gift to help you become like the one who has saved you already, and who you now have union with. They're there to shape you and mould you in to the person that God intends you to be - a reflection of his Son, Jesus Christ.

So yes, yes, yes, try to keep those imperatives, they're for our good and God's glory, but do so in full knowledge that you are accepted in Christ, you are united to Christ, you are a new creation in Christ, and that your failures cannot undo his success.

In other words, keep those imperatives grounded in the indicative.

Thought 1

2009-12-04T14:17:00.002Z

Well, I’ve decided to enter the world of blogging.

Being from the backwaters of The North I’m not the most culturally savvy person on the web, so don’t expect too much by way of cutting edge comment. Also I’m not the most original person in world, so you’re very unlikely to find anything here that hasn’t been said many times before. And thirdly (I like three points see) I am a little suspicious of blogs. I confess to having quite a lot of sympathy with this article.

Despite all of the above though, I am going to blog. Most of the blogs will reflect my biggest passion in life, Jesus Christ and making him known. If anyone visiting this blog wants to know why I’m blogging, he’s why. I believe that knowing him in the first place, and then knowing him better is what matters most for anyone.

Please feel free to comment on anything that you read here. I might even reply every now and again.