Meritocracy. This is a word that caught my attention this past week. It is a compound word that has French, Latin, and Greek roots. “Merit” is that which has been earned and therefore deserved, and “cracy” speaks of power or authority and usually refers to those who rule. We are familiar with a democracy which is, literally, “rule by the people.” A meritocracy is “rule by those who have earned or deserve the right to have authority.” In a meritocracy those who rule would be those who have the education, experience or wisdom that enables them to rule well. We would hope that a democracy is also a meritocracy, but, as most people would agree, that is not always the case. Sadly, we often have people in positions of authority who should not be there. It does seem often our governments are more of a plutocracy, a rule by the rich, for it is the ones who have access to money who seem to win the elections.

We might wonder how our world might be different if the leaders of our nations were chosen on the basis of their merits. If, during an election, the people discussed the qualifications of an individual to lead, thinking about their experience, their education, their proven ability to make discerning decisions, would we choose different leaders? Generally, in our democracies, we choose candidates based on their promises to us, meaning that we choose those who will best benefit us rather than those who might be the best leaders. We should not wonder why so many are dissatisfied with their political leaders.

We can discuss meritocracy in the political sphere, but what about in the church? Is our church meritocratic, meaning that it is governed by those who have proven ability to lead? The Bible is clear when it guides us in the selection of leaders within the church. 1 Timothy 3 contains a list of qualifications for those who serve as elders (overseers) and deacons. Unfortunately, use of this chapter has sometimes been limited to arguing against (and for) women in office, but that is not Paul’s first intent for what he was saying to Timothy. Rather, as we read this chapter closely, we notice that what Paul is really concerned about is that the church be governed by people who have proven themselves to be spiritually mature and that that maturity is seen in the way they interact with their families and communities. Those who serve as leaders of the church should have a proven track record in the Christian leadership in their families, in the church and in the community at large.

For the main part, this is practiced in all the churches where I have served. When the congregation nominates individuals to serve as elders and deacons, the council reviews those names and evaluates the nominees on basis of their merits. Do they display the spiritual maturity and proven leadership skills necessary to lead a church to be faithful to the Lord? If not, the nominee is not presented to the congregation for consideration. Today we draw lots, but back a few decades ago churches would vote on the nominees, and it was expected that the congregation discern which of the nominees merited their vote. Sadly, those votes often became little more than popularity contests, with the result that some very qualified people never were asked to serve in a leadership position in the church. Churches moved to the lot system more out of necessity than for biblical reasons. (There are many who argue that drawing lots is not mandated in Scripture and therefore is an unacceptable method of choosing leaders, but that is another subject.) The procedures we follow do include an element of meritocracy, and for that we can be thankful.

But is the church a true meritocracy? It is not. At our elders meeting last week, we were led in a discussion about the calling of elders and deacons, particularly recognizing that it is Jesus Christ who appoints leaders in the church. True, he uses the church to identify and name those who will serve in leadership roles, but it is ultimately Jesus Christ who is the one who calls us to serve. The discussion we had centred around those who serve in the office of elder (it was an elders’ meeting, after all), but we could say that all those who serve in any capacity of leadership in the church (deacon, pastor, teacher, counsellor, Bible study leader, etc.) are also called by Jesus Christ to their task. While the church is called to identify those who merit a position of leadership, it is ultimately Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, who calls and appoints people to their leadership role.

Thus, instead of seeing the church as a meritocracy (although meritocracy is present), it might be better to understand the church as a Christocracy, for it is Jesus Christ who ultimately reigns. This has at least two implications: first, those who are called to lead do so in the name of Christ and therefore can be confident to lead with authority. And the congregation is obligated to follow those who lead. The second implication, obviously, is that the leaders of the church do not lead with autonomy. Everything that the leaders do must be subject to the will and rule of Christ Jesus. Leaders of all kinds within the church must never forget that, for as soon as they do, they become illegitimate, for they no longer recognize Christ’s authority. We might say that the most important merit of the leaders of the church is that they recognize the authority of Jesus Christ in all areas of life, that the church is a Christocracy.

Our democracies are in a bit of a mess nowadays, and maybe they always have been. Democracies are based on the idea that the people govern themselves, and when people govern themselves, we must also wonder if they are making decisions for their own benefit. It is the human inclination to look after ourselves first. The church is not a democracy; it is a Christocracy, where Jesus Christ is the final authority in all things. It is also a meritocracy, but the one qualification that is absolutely necessary is that each leader submits him/herself to the will of Christ. When following Jesus Christ faithfully, it is hard to be selfish, as we often are in a democracy. When leaders submit to the will of Jesus Christ, those who seek to follow Jesus Christ as well will joyfully follow their leaders, and the church will grow in faithfulness and faith.

We can talk about it until the cows come home. I have used that expression without giving it much thought. Usually, we use this expression when we are having a discussion that seems to have no resolution. An example might be, “We can talk about what the most reliable tractor is until the cows come home, but…” What we mean to say is that though we may talk about something all afternoon, we won’t ever come to a resolution, so we might as well stop now and get back to work.

But where does this expression come from? When I was growing up on a dairy farm, my father would pasture the cows in the summer, often at the back of the farm where there was a woodlot. In the first month or so of summer, we would have to go back to the woodlot and chase the cows to the barn for feeding and milking. By the end of the summer, however, the cows sensed when the day was about over, and more often than not they would voluntarily return to the holding area outside of the barn right around milking time. At that point we dropped whatever we were doing, and we milked the cows. If we happened to be sitting on the veranda at the back of the house discussing one of those unresolvable issues, the conversation would stop when the cows came home. It was time to get back to work.

Yesterday, someone told me about a conversation she had had a few days earlier in which the individual wanted to argue the truth of the Bible. This individual said he didn’t believe because he didn’t trust the church because, he believed, the church had dismissed a number of books that should have been part of the Bible because the church wanted to control how people think. He didn’t trust the church, and he didn’t trust the Bible, and, consequently, he was not going to put his trust in Jesus. Clearly the member of our church and this individual could have had a conversation “until the cows came home” but they would never have come to a firm conclusion. He was dead set against the Christian faith and there was nothing that would change his mind.

I have talked with people like that, and they have all sorts of reasons not to be a Christian. They point to the failings of Christians, or they say that Scripture cannot be trusted, or they don’t like the organized church, or they name some other reason that they don’t want to believe. I have a fairly good education, and I often see the fallacies of their arguments, but even if I try to reason with them, we can talk until the cows come home, and we still won’t come to a resolution.

That expression, “until the cows come home,” seems to say that cows have more common sense than humans. Cows focus our attention on what we can and should be doing rather than on things that produce no fruit. I have an acquaintance who used to attend church who is always trying to discredit the Christian faith and church. (I think he was attending church because he was more interested in a girl from the congregation than he was in worshipping God.) I have had a number of rather fruitless conversations with him where neither of us budged. As much as I try to defend the truth of the gospel, the reliability of the Bible, and the blessings of the Christian community, he refuses to listen. We can (and have) talked until the cows come home, but there has been no fruit from our conversations for either of us.

It would have been better, in my mind, if I had simply stopped engaging him in conversation. There is another saying, “Make hay while the sun is shining.” In other words, do the work that is before us instead of talking on the back porch until the cows come home. It seems then, that like the cows who focus our attention on getting back to work, my time with my acquaintance would have been more productive had I been a better friend. I knew that he was somewhat lonely and that he had given up a lot to move to a new community to care for an aging relative. Looking back, it might have been better for me to find ways to encourage him rather than argue with him. (Truth be told, he was the one who baited me and almost forced me into discussions that would not be resolved. Especially in online discussions, he showed a mean and condescending attitude which was quite unpleasant. I don’t think he wanted encouragement, although, I have to confess, I didn’t try too hard.)

Sometimes there are times when conversations are pointless, for they will accomplish nothing. This is especially true of those who have no other intention than to discredit what we believe. We shouldn’t wait until the cows come home to end the discussion, for it will be wasted time.

However, that does not mean there is nothing we cannot do. As I mentioned before, we can find ways to love those who are so harsh in their view of the faith and the church. I suspect that they often arrive at their position because they have been hurt in some way and have become bitter against Christ and his church. Being kind and loving and focusing on being a friend might be far more productive than engaging them in an unresolvable argument.

Sometimes it is better to do rather than talk. There is a place for talking, of course, but when talking is fruitless, doing can be productive. Loving a bitter person might go a lot further than arguing with them. Loving someone with the same grace and compassion that God shows us might open doors to more fruitful discussions.

If we find ourselves in one of those situations where there will be no resolution, there is not much point in wasting the afternoon. If the cows have come home and we haven’t come to a resolution, perhaps we should have been out in the field making hay. Talking is good and important and necessary, but doing is often more productive. We should be out making hay when the sun shines instead of talking until the cows come home.

The book of Revelation, after an opening chapter, includes seven letters to seven churches in what is now Turkey. Among these letters is one addressed to the church in Laodicea. As with all of the letters in Revelation 2 and 3, John the apostle levels an accusation against Laodicea, saying that they are lukewarm, being neither hot nor cold. As with most of the letters, John uses things that the city is famous for in these short letters, and one of the things that Laodicea was known for was its poor water. Two nearby cities, Colosse and Hierapolis, were known for their good water. Colosse had cold water springs, and Hierapolis had hot water springs, and while the water at Hierapolis was not suitable for drinking, it was thought to have restorative value for those who bathed in it. Laodicea had to import its water via aqueduct, and when the water arrived, it was only lukewarm, perhaps suitable for drinking but not very refreshing. In fact, lukewarm water is often used to induce vomiting, something that John says God is about to do with Laodicea if they did not change their ways.

Laodicea was known to be a wealthy city, known for its banking establishments, its medical schools and its textile industry. It was because of this wealth that the Laodicean church had come to believe that it was self-sufficient and did not really need God or the salvation he provided in Jesus Christ. It was a church which was no longer saw fellowship with God as being crucial to their wellbeing. We might say that the lukewarm state of the church in that city was seen in the believer’s rather blasé attitude toward the gospel, but life as a Christian, the letter seems to be saying, must be somewhat radical, so that believers can impact the world around them in a positive way.

When in Bible College several decades ago, a fellow student, Evan, stood up in a student gathering and called us to become radical Christians. He was frustrated by what he perceived to be a lukewarmness in the church, for many Christians, while bearing that name, were not making an impact in the name of Christ. He called for us to become radical.

But there is a potential problem. Radicalism is often viewed to be dangerous by those who hold to the status quo. In some parts of the world radicalism is on the uprise, leading to extremist groups, often religious in nature, engaging in violent acts. Radicalism in Islam, for example, has made the world a much more dangerous place with groups like ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the like killing, kidnapping, and generally causing terror in many areas of the world. As Christians we might be more sensitive to news of these terrorist groups “persecuting” Christians, but, truth be told, these radical groups more often than not destroy Muslim communities as much or than they do Christian communities. In Nigeria, for example, while Christians are often the target of extremist groups, Muslim communities are almost just as often targets of their terrorism. It is somewhat misleading to say that the Nigerian Church is under attack without recognizing that it is all who are not extremists who are being terrorized.

My fellow student in Bible College was disappointed by the way things were in the world, and he wanted to see things changed. For him, being radical was the way forward, for only when we are radical can we make a difference. His view of the world was not all that different from the radicals and extremists of this world today. Many of those who are radicalized and become extremists do so because they perceive that the world is not as it should be, and they feel that nothing will change unless they make extreme statements shooting up churches or mosques or kidnapping students for ransom. Radicals nearly always become so because they are disillusioned with the status quo and they are moved to action because they feel disenfranchised or marginalized.

I do not disagree that the status quo, as we find it in our nation, is disappointing. Increasingly Christian values are being eroded, and Christian beliefs are being marginalized and even ridiculed. We ought to be concerned about the present state of the world, and we should be moved to do something about it, something that will call us to be radical and even extreme. Many Christians feel the same, and, thus, we see calls to do something about it. In the minds of some who name themselves as Christians, this might call for extreme measures that could call for the elimination of those who advocate for non-Christian values and beliefs. The thought is that if we are not radical (even to the point of violence), nothing will change.

But is this what it means to be a radical Christian? Perhaps we can be informed by the actions of the early church in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries. The status quo was not desirable for many followers of Jesus Christ, for it was legal and even acceptable to persecute Christians, taking from them their freedoms, their jobs, their land and even their lives. How did the church respond? In many parts the church responded with radical behaviour, so radical that it shocked the Roman world and caused some who were opposed to Christianity to become followers of Jesus Christ. But what did the church do? It did two things: it continued to preach the gospel, calling people to faith in Jesus Christ, a radical and dangerous undertaking. And, to support the message of God’s grace to the world, Christians, in a very radical way, showed great love to those who had been placed on the margins of the Roman world. In particular, Christians were known to minister to those who had been quarantined because of skin disease (leprosy, often), putting themselves in danger of contracting the same diseases. Christians loved those around them, especially caring for the poor and marginalized. This was the radical response to the status quo, and it made a difference.

Christian radicalism (or Christian extremism) should be very different from the radicalism we see in other places. Christians do not fight for themselves and their own rights as most radicals are wont to do. Rather, we see that God’s calling is to portray the love and grace of God in the lives of others, and the most obvious way to do that is to love those who no one else loves. After all, God has done that for us, unlovable sinners that we are. Evan, my fellow student, was right: we do need to be radical. But we need to be sure that our radicalism is rooted in grace and love, just as Jesus’ extremist actions were for us.

Canada has sent about 180 ambassadors to other countries, and their primary work is to strengthen diplomatic relationships between Canada and the nations to which they are sent. Ambassadors speak with the authority of our Prime Minister and are expected to reflect the views and goals of the government of Canada. We view ambassadors as working to maintain good relationships between two equal parties, two sovereign nations.

In 2 Corinthians 5:20 Paul names himself (and, by extension the church) as Christ’s ambassadors. Using our understanding of what an ambassador is, we might say that our role as Christians is to restore diplomatic relationships between God and the world. In political settings it is expected that ambassadors do not criticize the nation to which they are sent, so when an ambassador voices his disapproval of his host nation, the people of that nation take offense and call him to account. (Think of the criticism the ambassador that the USA sent to Canada received when he spoke in negative terms about some of our policies and practices.) In the same way, we might get the impression that as ambassadors of Jesus Christ sent to this world, we must not speak critically about what is going on in this world but rather show love and acceptance. This is something that is being taught in many parts of western Christianity.

To understand ambassadors in this way is to misunderstand the meaning of the Greek word that is translated as “ambassador”. The word that is used in Scripture speaks of an emissary sent from God to this world to deliver the message of God’s will to the world. But more than that, the ambassador not only speaks the message from God; he also involves himself in ensuring that that message is put into action. There is no concept of negotiation or diplomatic efforts on the part of the ambassador, as the word is used in the Greek language. The ambassador, as a messenger from God, makes God’s will known, and then he engages the people to whom he is sent, seeking to evoke the change that God’s message envisions. In other words, the ambassador is sent by the King (God) to both call the people to whom he is sent to compliance and to work to see that they do comply.

With that in mind, we might ask the question, “What is the message that God has for the world?” In complete contrast to those who wish to engage in diplomatic conversations with the world on God’s behalf, some propose that as ambassadors our job is to call people to compliance with God’s law. They call for the cessation of immorality, for the end to illegal activity of all sorts, for the abolishment of unbiblical relationships, and so on. Our job as ambassadors is to not only call for compliance to God’s law but also to ensure that compliance becomes reality, or so some believe.

But this is not what Paul says. In his letter to the Corinthians, (and the Corinthians church was among the most immoral, unethical, self-gratifying churches of the New Testament), Paul does not call the church to compliance, at least not here, but rather, says that as ambassadors, we are called to bring this message: “Be reconciled to God” and with that message engage in the ministry of reconciliation.

Reconciliation, as we know, is only necessary when a relationship is broken. Our relationship with God is broken because of our sin, and we cannot avoid that. Those who would say that ambassadors should be of the kind who simply seek to restore the relationship between God and his people omit the grave problem of sin. Sin has ruined the relationship that we had with God, and reconciliation is needed, and that sin must be acknowledged and confronted. On the other hand, those who propose that what is needed is compliance to God’s law miss that reconciliation is about restoration of relationship. Compliance to God’s law omits the reality that what we need is a restored relationship.

What is lacking in both misunderstandings of our message is the cross of Christ. If the message of the ambassador is only about building relationships without talking about sin, then why did Jesus have to die? If on the other hand, the message of the ambassador is only about complying with God’s law, what is the point of the cross of Christ?

Paul says that the message of the ambassador is neither of these. Rather, it is simply this: be reconciled to God. Notice that the command is passive. Paul does not say, “Reconcile yourself to God.” That would put the work of reconciliation upon us. Instead, he says, “Be reconciled,” as if reconciliation is something that happens to us. And that is the heart of the matter. He goes on to say, “God made him who had not sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” And earlier he says, “God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s sins against them.”

The message of the ambassador, then, is the truth that God reconciled (active, not passive) us to himself through Christ. God sends us with that message to the world so that the world can know that it is God who restores the relationship by forgiving us our sins even as Jesus takes them upon himself on the cross. Jesus was obedient on our behalf, and he removes the sin from our lives so that our relationship with God can be restored. We involve ourselves in the ministry of reconciliation by calling people to recognize their sin so that they can also receive God’s restorative forgiveness.

This is not diplomatic work done at arm’s length. We cannot engage in the ministry of reconciliation without loving those around us, and we cannot engage in that ministry without also recognizing sin for what it is.

I write this because I perceive that in the western church, we are becoming polarized. On one hand, there are those who seek to bring reconciliation to the world without mentioning and confronting sin. On the other, there are those who believe that reconciliation is primarily about compliance to God’s laws. These two sides are becoming increasingly distant from each other as they criticize one another. If the church continues down this road, we will lose sight of the centrality of the cross. But, if we hold the cross front and centre, we will have to both acknowledge the destructive nature of sin, and we will be compelled to bring the sinner the message that in Jesus Christ there is the hope of a restored relationship. The ministry of reconciliation, then, must acknowledge both sin and relationship and make known that in Christ sin is forgiven and the relationship is restored.

Can cats eat grass? The answer is, “Yes, they can.” And they do, from time to time. However, a cat cannot survive on grass. They are carnivores, and they need to eat meat in order to survive. Cats do eat grass, but it is not likely that they derive much nutrition from it. While a little grass does provide some vitamins that may be scarce in meat, it is likely that cats eat grass because grass helps them throw up hairballs and the indigestible parts of prey. An old farmer’s proverb says that cats also can be seen eating grass a day or so before it rains, but that is anecdotal, and if it is true, no one really knows why they would do that.

I raise this question because I have heard, several times in the last few months, that before the world fell into sin, cats (lions, in particular) ate only grass or other kinds of vegetation. The idea is that cats had to be entirely vegetarian because there was no death before the fall, and the only way for a cat to eat a mouse was to kill it. Cats were changed physiologically in the fall as were all other carnivores, or so the claim is made. This claim is quite significant, for if it is true that the world’s fall into sin changed a cat from being a herbivore into a carnivore, that is a huge change. It’s almost as if cats became entirely different animals because of the entry of sin into the world.

This question brought me to another question: what is death? Death, as we normally define it, occurs when a living organism stops living. A tree dies when its cells stop reproducing. A cat dies when it stops breathing and its heart stops beating. That is one way to explain the phenomenon of death. Another way is to say that death is an unnatural separation. Spiritual death, for example, is the unnatural separation between God and a person. God created us to be in fellowship with him, and our sin causes that fellowship to cease. We become spiritually dead, the Bible says, because we are separated from the source of our spiritual life. The physical death of a human being is the unnatural separation of a body from its spirit/soul. Our souls leave our body at physical death, and while our bodies remain on this earth, our souls go to their post-life destination which, for Christians, is into the presence of God.

With that in mind, we have to ask ourselves, “What happens when an animal dies?” Animals do not have souls, and as much as we might try to comfort a child whose hamster has died saying that the hamster is in hamster heaven, it is unlikely that there is such a place. A dead hamster is simply a hamster whose body has ceased to function. Further, hamsters do not die spiritually for, unlike humans, they have no soul, and thus they were never connected to God as humans are, so they cannot be separated from God. So, the big question is this: if a cat kills a mouse, while the mouse ceases to exist as a living creature, does it die in the sense that there is an unnatural separation?

I won’t answer that question, but it should give us pause and ask the question: did God originally create cats to be carnivores? If there is no unnatural separation when a mouse dies, is that truly death or does the mouse simply cease to exist?

This whole discussion reveals a significant difference between the viewpoints of atheistic evolutionists and those who believe that God created the world. An atheistic evolutionist will say that all living creatures are of the same kind, for we all have the same source of life. Thus, for such a person, the death of a cat or a mouse or a human is nearly the same thing. Death is merely the cessation of life. Humans feel it more when a fellow human dies compared to a pig losing one of its siblings, so that makes death more noticeable. But for an atheistic evolutionist, death is a natural process which happens to every living creature and that is the way it is. There is no unnatural separation, according to an atheistic evolutionist. For them, death is the cessation of existence.

Christians (and Jews, of course) see things differently. While we were created on the same day as animals, we are very different from them. While God spoke, and animals came into existence, the creation of humanity is very different. Genesis 2 tells us that story, and we learn that after God had carefully shaped us out of the dust (let us never forget where we came from), he breathed into us life, setting us apart from every other living creature. The intimate act of God bending low to breathe into the nostrils of Adam shows us a closeness between God and humanity that is never shown to be true of animals. Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into his (Adam’s) nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. It was the breath of God that gave us life, not just a spoken word. We could say that it was in that act, human beings were granted souls, something that animals do not have.

Sin brought death into the world, causing unnatural separation. The two kinds of death that humans experience (spiritual death and physical death) are real and powerful and, for us, irreversible. But death is not irreversible for God, for in Jesus Christ, we are made spiritually alive through the working of the Holy Spirit. The first unnatural separation is reversed as we are reconnected to God. And our physical deaths will also be reversed when Jesus returns and we experience the resurrection. The death of humanity is reversible through Jesus Christ.

It should be noted that the same is never said of animals. There is never an inclination or desire to see animals restored to life. While there may be animals in the new creation, it doesn’t seem as if the pet hamster will be the same one as the one who we assured our children is in hamster heaven. A dead hamster on this earth is a dead hamster, and it is no more. So, we must wonder, using the definition of death being an unnatural separation, if the hamster really died. Or did it just cease to exist? And would it matter if, in a perfect world, the cat ate the hamster? Maybe the cat was a carnivore before the fall and even though it ate a mouse, there was no death, if we define death as an unnatural separation of two things that are designed to be united. I don’t know the answer, but the question did make me contemplate the reality of what death is and how in Christ, death is reversible and reversed for all who believe in him. This is what sets us apart from the animals as well.

It has been said that when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe nothing; they believe anything. The origin of this statement is uncertain, but it goes back several centuries when it appeared in this way: “When people stop believing in God, they believe in ghosts.” Those who said this (and this statement appears several times in print), thought of ghosts as being the figment of a person’s imagination. To put it another way, those who stop believing in God will make up things in which they can put their faith.

The same can be said of sound biblical knowledge. When people lose their understanding of biblical teaching, they don’t believe in nothing; they believe anything. We do not doubt that this is true. Those, even Christians, who abandon the teachings of Scripture tend to adopt all sorts of odd beliefs that they are absolutely certain are true but have little biblical basis. For example, there are those who would hold Jesus in very high regard (which is good), but they have neglected the parts of Scripture which teach us that Jesus did not come to this earth to be a good example to us, but he came to die on the cross for our sins. Or, failing to read Scripture, they begin to imagine God as being a grandfatherly sort of person who is not too concerned about sin. When we stop understanding Scripture, we don’t believe nothing, we believe anything.

In some polls, the pollsters ask the question: do you believe that the (name a public figure) took a bribe? They then publish the poll saying that 72% of people believe that the public official is guilty, and, for some reason, that makes him guilty. Nearly all of those who were polled do not have all the facts, and there is no way that they can make a judgement call about what may or may not have happened. Public opinion does not change reality.

And, yet, that is often what happens with our understanding of God. I have attended Bible studies where the leader went around the table and asked each person what he/she thought a particular verse meant. The answers varied significantly, and, at the end of the day, the verse seemed to mean just about whatever someone wanted it to mean. People start believing anything when they seem incapable of reading Scripture as it is meant to be read. My opinion (or your opinion) doesn’t determine the meaning of a verse in the Bible. Instead, we need to determine what the verse does mean, and we must sometimes struggle to discover that meaning together. We don’t arrive at our conclusions by having each person state their opinion but, rather, by using involved study of God’s Word using good biblical study methods.

I took a course in seminary in which we sought to determine what the Bible was truly saying. Each week the professor would assign a passage of Scripture, and we were asked to spend the week studying that verse. We had to take into account the biblical context and the historical context. We had to think about the meanings of the words. We had to think about the flow of the passage and what were the parts that were emphasized. We were encouraged to read commentaries that were written by scholars who had spent years reflecting on one or two books of the Bible and who were authorities on what had been said about a passage over the years and around the world. After spending several hours studying a passage, we would gather together and we would be asked to write on the board, in one sentence, what the main point of the passage was. We would then spend the rest of the hour talking about how our studies had moved us to our conclusions. Usually, by the end of the hour, we had nuanced the statements that we had each given (they were usually quite close) and we would write out a simple sentence stating the main point of the passage. We did this because it is meant to be the first step in preparing a sermon, for if we cannot state the main point of the passage, the main point of the sermon may well be incorrect.

At the end of the course, I felt much better equipped to understand the Bible as it is meant to be understood, and I felt less inclined to simply offer my opinion on what I thought it might be saying. I try to do this in my sermons, discovering the main point of a passage before I start writing my sermon. I know that I sometimes miss the point, but I am hopeful that most times the theme of the sermon is the same as that of the text which we read in church.

A few weeks ago I was asked to evaluate a sermon of a candidate for ministry presented for his examination for ordination. I was uncomfortable with the sermon, but I could not put my finger on the problem until he began to talk about the steps he had taken to prepare the sermon. The more he talked, the more I realized that he had not taken the time to discover the main point of the text, and, as a result, he had produced a sermon, though not biblically unsound, had little correspondence to the main point of the sermon. He was solid enough theologically that he did not lead us astray, but his sermon was not rooted in the text. It was something he wanted to talk about and while he did not stray from teachings of Scripture, Scripture was not guiding his message. It boiled down to his opinion, in a sense, and the result was very little different from what we accuse liberals of doing.

Here in the West, we are increasingly being led to believe that someone’s opinion about something makes it true. We must recognize this problem and come to understand that what makes something true is that it is true. When it comes to what we believe, what we believe does not make it true. What makes what we believe true is that what we believe is true. We learn truth through God’s revealed Word, and we understand truth by discovering what that Word says. If we decide to that which is true, we won’t believe in nothing; we will believe anything.

“Reformed and always reforming.” This is a phrase that has been used for the past few decades by people who believe that the Christian church, in particular the Reformed branch of the Christian church has stagnated and needs to become more contemporary. In particular, this phrase has been heralded by those who believe that the church is out of touch with society and needs to reevaluate some of its teachings and practices.

This phrase was not from the Reformation times (the early 1500s) but, rather, was coined in 1674 by a Dutch church leader who believed that the Reformed churches of his time had stagnated and that Christians needed to think more critically about what they believe and how they live in this world. He was concerned that the church was becoming something that was different from what God intended it to be.

In the last few decades or so, the phrase, “reformed and always reforming,” has been adopted by more liberal Christians to call for the church to change so that it becomes more “relevant” to the culture in which it exists. Most recently they have called the church to a new reformation particularly in the area of human sexuality, saying that science has shown that what were once considered deviations by psychologists (e.g. homosexual practice) should now be considered normal and acceptable. “We need to reform,” many are saying, so that we can be relevant to the world in which we live. Essentially, they teach that continued reformation must happen, and if the church does not reform itself, it will lose the opportunity to witness to the many who cannot abide by traditional values.

Because those who are more liberal in their theology used this phrase, there has been a bit of a backlash among those who would identify themselves as more conservative. “We must keep things the same,” has been the response, and some have even begun to push back and say that we must not allow change. We should abide in what we have been given.

As we prepare to remember Reformation Day this coming Friday, it might be helpful to understand what the phrase “reformed and always reforming” means. It is important to know that this phrase is a truncated and twisted version of the original phrase. In the late 17^th century, Jacobus van Lodenstein coined this statement: The church is reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God. There are several aspects of this statement that deserve our attention.

First, we note that the church is reformed. When van Lodenstein wrote this, he was referring to the confessional statements made by the Reformation churches, confessions which brought the Protestant churches back to the Word of God. These confessions were rooted in the teachings of Scripture and corrected some of the divergent teachings introduced over the centuries. Many of these teachings were the result of human statements being given revelatory status and had become engrained in the traditions and teachings of the church. The Protestant church had reshaped its theology to align it with the teachings of Scripture, and, thus, the Creeds and Confessions, thus, held a high position in the Protestant Church, for they provided a framework which enabled people to understand the central teachings of Scripture in summary form. The reformational churches understood that even the creeds and confessions were not to be considered untouchable, and throughout the years, with careful study of Scripture, they have been changed to comply with biblical teaching. Even the documents that shape our understanding of what God has revealed to us are subject to reformation, if Scripture demands it. Nevertheless, we would say that the church is reformed, reshaped from the way it was before the Reformation.

Second, we note that the original statement is not that the church should be reforming but rather that it is being reformed. The first is active while the second is passive. By this we understand that it is the powerful work of the Holy Spirit in the church that moves it forward in its understanding of Scripture. As the culture around it changes, the church must find its way forward, seeking to understand how it can live within an ever-changing culture. The Confessions do not address, for example, the Pentecostal movement which began in the early 1900s or infant dedication which has become a wide-spread practice among many evangelical churches in the last 50 years or so. The Christian church needs to deal with these shifts. Another more insidious movement (as mentioned before) deals with human sexuality. How does the church respond to this major cultural shift that has taken hold in the last decade and a half? Where is the Holy Spirit leading the church as it responds to an ever-changing world? Some have said that the church is being moved to accept and love those who do not wish to maintain a traditional view of human sexuality, and they believe firmly that this is where the Holy Spirit is leading the church today. These subjects are often controversial, and the church must trust that it is being reformed/reshaped by the powerful work of the Holy Spirit.

Third, and most important, is the phrase, “according to the Word of God.” While we believe firmly that the church must allow itself to be changed by the powerful work of the Holy Spirit who guides God’s people to live faithfully in an ever-changing cultural context, we also know that not all that seems to be the work of the Holy Spirit really is. While we must be convinced that Holy Spirit is working in the church, we also must be firmly convinced that the Spirit will never move the church in any direction other than that which complies fully with Scripture, God’s revealed word. Thus, we are called to test the movements within the church to discover if they are the work of the Spirit or if they are merely the result or people bowing to cultural values. The debates in many denominations over human sexuality, for example, show this divide quite clearly. Those who argue for a change in practice find it difficult to find support for their views in Scripture, and more often than not, we find them referring to newly accepted cultural norms as their guide for change. On the other hand, those who argue for the traditional view of human sexuality base their views on Scripture. Even then, of course, we must be sure that when we base our arguments on Scripture, we do so in a way which does not result in our twisting Scripture for our own purposes. That is as problematic as relying on culture to guide us as we navigate life in this world. Still and all, we trust that the Holy Spirit will move the church of Jesus Christ to respond appropriately to the world in which we live, bringing about new understanding and change, always according to the teaching of Scripture.

To summarize, the church should never believe that it has arrived. Rather, the church (and we as individuals) should always be ready to be guided by the Spirit, even as we study the Scriptures to ensure that what we feel is the Spirit’s leading actually is. And, if we are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, we should aways be ready to be reformed again and again as we follow the leading of the Spirit to conform us to the teachings of Scripture.

Last week a member of the congregation shared an article with me from the New York Times in which the author, David French, spoke about a rising religious fervour in North America, seen more clearly in the United States than in Canada. In that article he contrasted Christian revival with Christian revolution. David French warns that what we might be seeing and experiencing today might be much closer to revolution than it is to revival. I find his insights helpful in analyzing the significant Christian movement of the last decade or so.

Revolutions have been part of Western culture for about three centuries. Significant revolutions include the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Communist Revolutions of Russia and China. In these revolutions, the people had become dissatisfied with the dominant powers, and they rose up against them to overthrow them. Typically, these revolutions took the form of removing political rulers and replacing them with new rulers, ones who make the claim that they will rule for the people. For a revolution to begin and to be successful, the people must prove that those who have power are in the wrong and that their continued power will result in the total destruction of society. It is necessary for revolutionaries to malign those in power by blaming them for all that is wrong with the world. Revolutionaries must state things to the extreme, for to admit that there is anything good in those who hold power would be to weaken their perceived right to remove them from power. Further, revolutionaries must be sure to plaster over any cracks in their own ideologies, for to expose a crack would be to betray weakness. Thus, in the American Revolution, for example, British rule was painted as being destructive while the proposed democracy that the revolutionaries would offer was painted as being the absolute best form of government. Democracy, self rule, was proposed as the being the goal to which all others should be expected to attain if they wanted true freedom.

The watchword of revolution is “You are wrong, and we are right.” To put this into Christian-speak, we could say that the watchword of Christian revolution is, “You are completely sinful, and we are completely righteous.” Of course, as we well know as Reformed Christians, neither statement is completely correct. While we believe in total depravity, we do not believe in utter depravity. Utter depravity says that there is no remnant of good in anyone while total depravity says that while there remain remnants of good in everyone (we can still see God’s image), every part is tainted by sin and therefore unacceptable to God. Revolution, by its very nature, must ignore total depravity and adopt a position of utter depravity, at least for those who are perceived to be enemies of Christianity. The other statement, “we are righteous,” also cannot be true, for we know that there is no one who is righteous. We are all sinners, and everything we do, even if it is in the name of Jesus Christ, is still tainted by sin.

In sharp contrast to revolution, revival says something completely different. Revival begins with the admission of personal sin and promotes repentance. A revivalist will say, “I am a sinner, and I repent.” If we look at the great revivals of the last few centuries, we discover that the influential leaders spoke directly to people about our sin. Jonathon Edwards, for example, preached a now famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, in which he likened complacent and sleeping Christians as being spiders hanging by a thread over a burning candle, in danger of being consumed in a moment. He moved his congregation to think about their own sin and to seek repentance from God. According to David French, “We will know when revival comes because we will see believers humble themselves, repent of their sins, and then arise, full of genuine virtue, to love their neighbors — to help them, not hurt them — and in so doing to heal our nation.” Revival results in life, as the word indicates. Revivification, the bringing again to life that which is dead or dying, is what is needed, not the destruction of those who are in opposition, as revolution demands.

Revival is not about power or about making things conform to one’s own ideologies. That’s revolution. Revival is about the renewal of the heart, and when the heart is renewed, life is renewed and when life is renewed, the world is renewed.

David French is concerned that we are mistaking the increasing religious fervour in the west, which is often tends to toward the revolutionary side, for revival. Revolutions can change things, of course. In the American Revolution, the outside monarchy was sent away and those from within took power of the new country. From that beginning the ideals of independence and freedom were born, but they were not realized for everyone. Democracy is not the rule of the people by the people but, rather, it is the rule of all the people by the dominant portion of the people. For those who were not among the dominant (slave, for example), democracy did nothing to make their lives better. Revolutions change the ones who have the power, and revolutions often do bring a better situation for many. But revolutions always involve the destruction of those who disagree.

Revivals, on the other hand, are life-giving. As we repent of our own sins and as we recognize our need for forgiveness, we are given new life by God. We are awakened to live and we, once again, recognize the value of giving others the ability to live. The intent of the revival is to give life to those with whom we have issue and who may be wrong and sinful.

Revolutionists must make their position strong and give themselves the right to overthrow others, and to do so, as already mentioned, they make the other the sinners and themselves the righteous. Revivalists recognize their own sin and repent of it. They never declare themselves to be righteous or even right. It is that posture of humility that brings life to others rather than take life from them.

It might be helpful if we would consider if we are seeing revolution or revival in the contemporary Christian climate. True, there is an increase in religious fervour, but is it of the right kind?

In 1689, in England, Parliament passed a law which said that all citizens had the right to bear arms. In the previous year England had experienced what has become known as the Glorious Revolution. King James II (not the one who authorized the production of the King James Bible), who was a staunch Roman Catholic, had turned against the Protestants in England developing policies which made their lives difficult. The Protestants rose up in revolt and, mostly without use of weapons and violence (thus named the Glorious Revolution), managed to reduce his power and give increased power to the Parliament. This marked a significant turning point in the British Isles, for since that day the monarchy has been subject to the rulings of Parliament.

In 1689, Parliament recognized that the king (or queen) could become tyrannical and destroy those who disagreed with them. To prevent tyranny, Parliament gave all citizens the right to bear arms against tyrannical, even to the point of overthrowing the monarchy by force. It should be noted that the idea of bearing arms was not original, for three quarters of a century earlier, Queen Elizabeth I had given common citizens the right to bear arms, effectively making all citizens into soldiers should the need arise. Her militia of citizens did not take hold, but the idea of citizens bearing arms did.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear arms, and for many of the same reasons as was found in British law. When first introduced, citizens were given the right to bear arms for the defense of the nation, to check federal tyranny, and to bring a balance of power to the nation by distributing the power of the sword among the people, the fifty states, and the federal government. Over the years the Supreme Court extended the right of a citizen (note that non-citizens are not necessarily included) to bear arms to protect him/herself from harm or attack.

We should note that in Canada there is no constitutional right given to Canadians to bear arms and the Supreme Court has also said that there is no constitutional right for a Canadian even to own a gun. The discussion in Canada has been centred around the right to own a gun, not the right to bear arms. It is important to realize that these are two very different things. Even if Canadians have the ability to own a gun, they do not have the right to bear arms as was enshrined in law in both England and the United States. (We should note that England has changed its laws, and its citizens no longer have the right to bear arms and owning a gun is considered a privilege.)

People who make the argument that they have the right to own a gun often argue that they would use the gun only at a gun range or to shoot varmints such as coyotes or bears. They also argue that hunting is a sport, and hunting requires one to carry a weapon, usually a gun. Rarely, if ever, do we hear people advocating for the right to bear arms as we might understand that phrase in the traditional sense. The right to bear arms also gives the bearer of the weapon to shoot to death another person. In other words, the right to bear arms supposes that the weapon will be used against another human being if the circumstances might warrant such action.

I suspect that most of those who advocate for gun ownership do not want to get into the debate about bearing arms, although, I suppose, some would say that they should have the right to defend themselves. They might be less likely inclined to say that the right to bear arms includes gathering a militia to attack the federal government if they perceive it has become too tyrannical.

The question we have to ask as Christians is this: does Scripture give room for us to bear arms either for self-defense or to overthrow a tyrannical government? Most of the “proof” for the right to bear arms for these reasons would come from the Old Testament, but we must be careful not to use the Old Testament laws in the New Testament context without carefully considering their context and purpose. (Those who advocate for Christian Nationalism, whereby they are advocating that a nation become like Old Testament Israel, tend to forget that the church is the continuation of God’s people of the Old Testament and not a particular contemporary nation.) It may be entirely inappropriate to apply Old Testament civil laws to current civil situations.

In the New Testament, we do see an ethic which seems to advocate against bearing arms with the intent to kill another person either because they are tyrannical or for reasons of self-defense. For example, Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, and in the context, he seems to be implying that this was also true in their response to the tyrannical Roman government. In his letter to the Romans, Paul reminds us that Scripture teaches us that it is God who has the task of avenging us if we think that revenge is called for. In fact, a quick study of the entire Bible indicates that God is the one who has the authority to avenge and when people engage in vengeance, they are usually in the wrong. We also note that the New Testament church’s response to the tyrannical behaviour on the part of the government was not to throw together a militia and attack the local authorities. When James was killed by Herod in Jerusalem (Acts 12), and when Peter was subsequently arrested to be tried by Herod (and likely killed as well), the church did not gather weapons and attack Herod or try to free Peter from prison. Rather, the church gathered to pray, and God answered their prayers, and Peter was freed. Herod, by the way, shortly after, died because worms of some sort had infested his body. And, of course, when Jesus was arrested and Peter took out his sword, cutting off a man’s ear, Jesus rebuked him and told him that his desire to exercise his right to attack a tyrannical government was out of line.

It does seem, as we read the Bible, that as Christians we should carefully question laws that would give people the right to kill other people even if their killing might seem justified. Gun ownership can be debated, for a gun can be used as a tool, just like we might use a welder or a hammer. Bearing arms, though espoused by many, including many Christians, should be carefully examined in the light of Scripture, and the question must be asked: is this what Jesus intended his followers to do? As we know, just because something may be legal does not make it right.

A few years ago, I had some business at the University of Toronto which is located near the downtown of the city. In a very small area, there are hundreds of thousands of people and during a normal day the sidewalks are full of people of all ages and ethnicities. As I walked along the sidewalk, I noticed that most of the people, while they did not avert their eyes, did not meet my gaze. For the main part, it was as if I didn’t exist. This, apparently, is not unique to Toronto. Some have told me that they have had a similar experience in Calgary. Even though there may be hundreds of people around, there is very little interaction with anyone.

One of the biggest problems facing people today is the problem of loneliness, and although it is counterintuitive, that problem becomes greater in settings where there are more people. We can understand why feelings of loneliness might arise if someone is living in an unpopulated area of the prairie, for there is no one else to talk to. However, to feel lonely on a city street where there are tens of thousands of people around doesn’t seem possible. In fact, we might feel more lonely in the midst of people than we would if we were in a remote location. When we are alone, loneliness comes as no surprise; when we are with others but have no interaction with them, it seems unnatural.

I have known people who say they are never more lonely than when they come to church service. This seems odd because, after all, when we gather for worship, we are with people who are of like mind and who have the same goal, namely serving Jesus Christ. Still, those who have told me of their loneliness say that while they are sitting in the pew, they sit alone, and the awareness that most other people have someone else makes them more aware of their own situation. And it’s not only single people who have said this. I have also heard the same from families who feel very lonely when they gather with the rest of the congregation. Perhaps the loneliness is accentuated by the fact that there is an expectation when we gather with God’s people that we will be welcomed as one would welcome a beloved member of the family, and when our experience is otherwise, we are shocked.

Some years ago, while living for a short time in a small city, I began to attend a church in that community, and my initial experience was wonderful. Someone immediately perceived that I was new to the church, and they came over to me with a smile and a welcome. They asked who I was, and they seemed to be genuinely happy that I was there. I felt welcome. A friend also attended that church with his family, and when I shared my experience with him, he became a little cynical: they are friendly, he said, but they do not want to become your friends. What he meant was that the church did its best to make him and his family feel welcome, but the relationship never went beyond that. They were never invited into the lives of others, and the feelings of loneliness grew, even as they were surrounded by smiling, welcoming people.

There are a number of biblical images of the church, but the one that addresses the problem of loneliness most fully is the image of the church being the family of God. We are brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. A few weeks ago, as a family we travelled back to Ontario where we spent time with family and friends. It was good to be with friends again, but it was more meaningful that we were with family. With family, we felt we belonged, and while our family is not perfect, it is where we felt welcome. This is what the church is meant to be. True, there are families where the members do not get along, and there may be feelings of loneliness even when with family. But, if we think about healthy families, we can see how the church, if it functions like a healthy family should, can be a place where there is no loneliness.

The church has been designated to be the family of God. By definition, when we put our faith in Jesus Christ, every other Christian in the world becomes our brother or sister. But being something by definition might not mean that we experience the reality. In other words, we are expected to cultivate that which we are. It takes effort and intention to treat each other as brothers and sisters. To that end, let me suggest two questions that we should ask of ourselves as we live out our role as children of God:

First, am I doing anything that might make others feel excluded? Groups of friends can become cliques, and cliques tend toward excluding most people while including just a select few. Being friendly without the expectation of making friends is a way of pushing people away rather than drawing them in.

Second, are we intentional about including others. Just because someone might be sitting among us does not mean they are with us. To include others is to open our lives to them. This is more than just having a simple conversation; to include means that we fellowship with them on a deeper level than just saying hi.

God did not create us to be lonely. He created us to be in community with each other, and the church, representing the restored creation, is meant to be a place where there is no loneliness. May it be that there is no loneliness among us.