Abraham was the biggest failure in achieving revival in his lifetime

  

This week’s reading describes Abraham’s call. (Genesis 12)

In prayer circles, we are often praying for revival, and personally, I have longed for a visible shift in the tide of society back to faith in Jesus.

However, what I have seen and experienced is mostly the opposite to this.

In my circumstances and church experience, I have only seen attendance numbers overall decrease.

This can be disheartening.

This is why I was excited to read about Abraham.

In one sense, God, after calling Abraham, seems to achieve little in his lifetime, the miraculous birth of Isaac and the famous testing of Abrahams faith, but in terms of affecting the people around him, the scale is truly domestic.

Yet Abraham never stopped believing what God had promised, that the sheer volume of descendants would be uncountable. That he would be the father of many nations.

And we still have not seen the complete fulfilment of those promises to Abraham.

On a slightly painful aside, what do we do when our prayer for revival seems to be unanswered?

Sometimes we look elsewhere.

We look longingly at the churches that are overflowing, the other countries where revival appears to be happening, the campuses where God’s presence is affecting people in amazing ways. We look because the internet can bring these places to our screens, we not only look but sometimes we go to these places, simply to experience what we long for.

I found it very interesting to see the traffic and lines of people that travelled to a recent place of spiritual revival.

I state these things not as someone who is better, or “above it all”, I see the same longing in me, and probably I would consider travelling a fair distance if it meant I would experience revival.

Yet the domestic scale is, I believe, God’s main mission field.

I believe that our faith-walk, in our ordinary, domestic situations, in our simple jobs and our ordinary local churches is actually worthy of our full-hearted attention, and the place where God achieves his most significant purposes in our lives.

Of course it is wonderful if God uses us in large scale, and he does do this with people he specifically raises up for this purpose, but most of us have a domestic mission field, and how we walk in it is significant to God and to us.

And sometimes, God uses our work when we are best able to cope with its effect, when we are physically (not spiritually) dead, as was, and continues to be the case for Abraham.

Getting church right?

With so many ways to worship in Australia, so many traditions, so many conflicting views, how can a person feel secure and be assured that their seat in a pew or chair in their chosen place of worship is blessed by God?
How “easy-going” (an Australian term implying tolerance) is God, regarding the way and the place that we worship?
These are troubling questions, which are sometimes better not asked, as attempting to answer them leads to strongly conflicting, yet firmly held views by some, as well as insecurity and anxiety for those of us who hold to them less firmly.
Firmly held views do not guarantee correctness. But carefully thought out theology may aid a sense of security.
Jesus, in his teachings recorded in the four gospel accounts, did upset the religious status quo. The Scribes and Pharisees were clearly at odds with what he taught, yet they could not trap him theologically.
They were secure in their religious understandings but when they could not debate their points successfully they then relied on their pedigree, and contrasted Jesus’ apparent lack of pedigree.
Jesus used the following to authenticate his teachings. 
1 Scripture. Jesus was able to accurately quote passages from the Old Testament to support the truth of his teaching. He also uplifted scripture emphatically stating that not a jot would ever be removed. This, I believe, potentially sets a precedent. He clearly raised the scriptures above certain traditions that nullified God’s word.
2. Signs. Jesus repeatedly stated that his miraculous signs also testified to the reliability of his teachings. But he also ironically criticized the generation of his time for wanting signs and miracles, stating that the only sign they would be given would be the sign of Jonah, implying his resurrection as the seal of his authority.

I mention the above not to call into question the truth of Jesus being the true Messiah and Son of God, the Word of God, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, God the Son. God. But to simply point to the lack of faith at the time of Jesus teaching. 

For us today, we too can easily fall into the religious status quo, relying on our pedigree for security, and potentially missing the possibilty of fellowship with others who are within the family of Christ. 
I believe we do well to remember that Jesus clearly identifies with the least of his disciples. (“Whatever you do to the least of my disciples, you do to me”). Hence, distancing ourselves from certain believers implies that we are missing out on fellowship with Jesus himself. 

My question is, at what point in our Sunday (or other day) services do we divide ourselves within a congregation?

What God has joined let no man separate.

Today I could not attend communion due to the clear (denominationally prescribed) definition of communion made before it was shared. There was the generous offer of a blessing to those who could partake, and I accept this without complaint apart from this reflection that was triggered by it. Communion, even by its less formal name, should by nature unify us as Christians, yet in my personal experience the practice and rules placed around the practice of communion seem to divide us, even strongly at times.

Yes, we should examine ourselves, we must recognise the body of Christ (which I would suggest includes the brethren who surround us), we should wait for each other, we should not belittle or humiliate each other at the communion table, but we should be unified by this most important meal.

Come to me all who are burdened and heavy laden and I will give you rest.

Being reliable is not necessarily enough. (Back to Thomas)

  

John 20:24-25 (NIV) 24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

 

Listening again to this passage I wondered once more about Thomas.

Why, after being told clearly by the other disciples that they had seen Jesus, would he not believe?

OK, some people need to see for themselves, I understand this.

BUT

Thomas wasn’t watching a television advertisement for a new stain removing detergent, he wasn’t listening to various people talk about their favourite politician.

He was listening to the other DISCIPLES!!!!

People he had shared three intimate years at Jesus feet with.

And it wasn’t just one of them saying that they had seen Jesus, it was a whole crowd of them, maybe even all that were left, ten, as Judas had taken his own life prior to the resurrection.

This, in my opinion, is like listening to all the members of your own family telling you that they had seen, alive, another family member who had died.

Why would Thomas refuse to believe people he previously trusted and respected?

These are my thoughts on Thomas’s possible motives for disbelieving.

1.        He believed they had seen a ghost, not a physically alive and risen Jesus.

2.        He believed they were suffering from mass hysteria. Sometimes crowds can together experience combined symptoms or behaviours fueled by tension or panic. (Feel free to look that up). I doubt that the idea of “mass hysteria” was present at that time.

3.        He refused to believe due to personal stubbornness, possibly fueled by a personal thought bias that he refused to let go of.

 

 

I would like to concentrate on number 3, though probably number 1 is the most likely answer.

 

I would like to propose that Thomas, along with all the other disciples and followers of Jesus, was deeply disappointed with the outcome of Jesus ministry, appearing to end in his execution. Thomas, along with others, may have held strong hopes that Jesus would politically succeed, gain political power, and overthrow Roman rule or at least bring into line a corrupt religious system.

 

Like the others, there was no room in his understanding for death and then resurrection.

 

I will add that at some point Thomas doubted Jesus words regarding “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”, which Jesus stated in Chapter 14 of John’s gospel.

 

Thomas had earlier responded to Jesus’ declaration, “you know the way to where I am going” with “We don’t know the place you are going so how can we know the way?”

To which Jesus answered with “I am the way…”

Then Philip suggests “Just show us the Father, and we will be satisfied”

 

The point I am making is that Jesus had clearly stated that to see him is to see God the Father. I wish to suggest that though Thomas heard this, he did not believe it. And so up to this point, Thomas does not believe that Jesus is, or could be, God, and a resurrected Jesus would call into question all that he had become convinced of regarding the humanity and political failure of his leader.

 

To believe the other disciples was too big a threat to his own pride and world view.

 

Once again, I wish to mention this is speculation on my behalf.

 

The reason I go into so much detail is because I realised from this passage that when we tell others about Jesus, just because we are honest, reliable and well known to the person or people we are sharing with, (in other words, our witness is strong) this by no means will convince someone else that Jesus is truly the Lord. People have their own personal agendas, and a lot is at stake when they are called to believe.

(I am not trying to discourage anyone from sharing their faith, as people must hear the good news in order to believe, and many will and do come to faith as God opens their hearts)

 

Getting back to Thomas, I would go so far as to suggest that Thomas shares some features with Saul, regarding the need to be confronted directly by Jesus in order to come to faith.

 

But, true to his word, when Jesus did appear to the disciples with Thomas present, and addressed the exact points Thomas had asserted, commanding him to put his hand in his wounds, Thomas quickly declared, probably the first to do so, that Jesus is both Lord and God.

What do we need in order to believe?

I suggest that each one of us who calls themselves a follower of the Lord Jesus, has in fact had a visitation of the Lord, the Holy Spirit.

 

 

No Other Reconciliation

 Just a scary thought.

Most of us who profess to be followers of Jesus, have some degree of hope for eternal resurrected life at some point in the future, when Jesus returns, or after we die. Our hope in this ought to be strong, very strong, as this is what Jesus has achieved for us.

Eternal life with God is mysterious, as we have not experienced this, but, like the thief on the cross, we hope to be with Jesus in his Kingdom.

But what about the other Christians?

Are we happy to share that place with others who are also believers.

Of course everyone including myself answers with a resounding "yes". Until we think about it more.

The focal point of heaven will be the throne of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mystery again.

Yet we also long to be with those we have lost. Family members, friends, our bible heroes.

But there are some we might not wish to share eternity with.

Now I am not discussing who is able to be saved, other than to stand by the words of Jesus, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father except through me". 

The point I wish to come to is the uncomfortable reality of divisions amongst us.

I don't simply mean denominations. 

What of the hurt between fellow believers, resulting in people changing churches or cease attendance, and of course many other situations of separation, for multiple, often painful reasons. 

If two offended parties are both in heaven, what would that be like?

Maybe I have already mentioned the way cemeteries are partitioned into various denominations, could heaven be likewise partitioned?

Unlikely. In fact, unimaginable in my opinion.

Will the disagreements suddenly disappear?

Possibly.

Revelations states that every tear will be wiped away, (by God).

Will our memories be erased?

Again, unlikely.

The point I wish to make is that I do not believe that there will be a courthouse in heaven for the resolution of disputes. 

On earth we do have these necessary places and people, that help with the resolution of disagreements, even within a church.

"Blessed are the peace makers"

BUT

there is only ONE place of reconciliation, in ALL of history.

The cross.

And this has already been completed. 

There will not be a further reconciliation process in heaven, in my theological understanding. 

If the cross has not achieved reconciliation for us, then nothing will.

If I dwell on this point, it helps me look at my life and my issues somewhat differently.

Maybe this is helpful.

The cross is powerful enough to reconcile the whole world to God, and to each other.

As people of the cross we are able to forgive those who trespass against us. 

Maybe this is why we are told to first be reconciled, and then present our offering at the altar? (Matthew 5:23) 

 

 

 

Easter, again?

 Jesus’ rising from the dead may seem, to some, a bit over done.

How many Easter’s have we experienced?

Does it have any relevance for today?

How does someone’s miraculous resurrection of 2000 years ago, have any effect on the world today?

The effect is not necessarily mind blowing. 

It is largely internal.

Anxiety, anger, jealousy, hatred, hurt, offence, shame, guilt, depression, rebellion , rudeness, pride, boasting, addiction can all be treated to some degree with medication, counselling and other modalities. 

But a man named Jesus, can enter a person’s life, and bring peace and acceptance where there was once turmoil. This would not make headlines.

Faith in the name of Jesus can turn a person around, from a raging bull to a gentle giant. From anger to joy. From fear to peace. Again, not headlines.

People who trust in Jesus believe he is with them in every detail of their lives, even when they aren’t concentrating on him.

“Everlasting arms”, is the title of a hymn. It does apply.

If he rose, he remains alive today.

Not a skeleton, not a mummified body, not a fossil, not a zombie, but a man. A warm, breathing, heart beating, physically solid, communicating man. 
A risen man with a risen body which is still human but now stronger, beyond sickness, beyond death, un-kill-able.

People sometimes try to meet their idols.
For example, people continue to visit Graceland to experience something of Elvis, who certainly had a charisma that can be experienced even today from old footage.
But Elvis himself is no longer accessible, other than archival material to be viewed on a screen.

I would love to visit the birthplace of Mozart, or to touch an original manuscript, but I can never meet Mozart face to face, today.
There is a tuft of Beethoven’s hair somewhere.
 
We have no archival footage of Jesus, but we have the gospels and the New Testament. This is very good, and extremely valuable to all Christians. 

But because Jesus is still alive today and lives forever, he is theoretically accessible right now. Yes, this moment. 

40 days after the resurrection, He physically  rose into heaven, to the Father’s right hand, he is physically in heaven , and he will physically return in the future.

But in the meantime he promises to be present to us, whenever people gather in his name. He has this ability. 

And many will say today they have personally experienced Jesus’ presence. I believe this is true.
But we mostly experience Jesus through each other, his followers are considered witnesses, and we do radiate Jesus to others whether we realise it or not.

Celebrating the resurrection is partly reminding ourselves that we do have access even now, to a risen saviour.

But the other deeply important issue we are reassured about when we put our trust in Jesus, is that the resurrection confirms that his self-sacrifice was an effective payment for our sin and the sin of the whole world.

Those of us who are troubled by our thoughts and actions, who have not found true peace in life even with a stable job and family dynamics, who feel an emptiness regarding our true purpose in life,

we give thanks that there has been an event, a well recorded event,  that has dealt with all of the above (sin, failure, rebellion, the letting down of others, etc)

Those of us who are untroubled by our consciences, and simply want to experience anything and everything, prefer no moral impediments, we don’t need or want a resurrection, it is quite annoying to have to hear about it again and again.

But to those of us who are morally troubled, this event of the cross or crucifixion of Jesus was the way God pulled together all of the sin (past present and future) of the whole world;  “he (Jesus) became sin”, and destroyed it fully. He “took the grenade for us”, in Bruno Mars language.
This is why Christian’s believe their sins are forgiven. 
But without a resurrection the death of Jesus would not necessarily stand out from any other death.

The resurrection was an apt reward to Jesus for his surrender for our sakes, 
but it also was God’s way of assuring us that Jesus is his true son, and that the cross has the desired effect of atonement and propitiation. Words that basically mean our sin is done and dusted and no longer separates us from God who is holy*. 

 

(As an aside, Try getting in to Buckingham Palace. Besides physical barriers, locked gates, fences etc, there are plenty of armed guards. And if you did get in, somehow (without an invitation) would King Charles be pleased to meet you and give you his time and conversation? Even if we are interesting and intelligent, unless we are specifically invited, or we are part of the king's family, we have no place in Buckingham Palace, this is my way of explaining the word "Holy", which basically means especially separated )

Wouldn’t it be simpler if we didn’t sin, and simply got on with one another? After all this sounds like an excuse to keep sinning?

The reality is, I keep sinning even when I try hard not to. Obviously the idea is to live better lives once Jesus is part of our lives, and for the most part I think we do. But we really do need a payment for our sin that lasts forever. Jesus did this.

Believing in the name of Jesus, as God’s Son, King of all Kings, and Lord of all Lords, has an effect on our internal workings.
Whether we know it or not, we begin to change, some faster than others, but the change happens. It’s a good change. Like I said, internal peace, a calming of anger and frustration, hope and happiness starts to take hold, a desire to sing, and a deep gratitude for even the smallest things appears. 
It can be faked, it can be mimicked, and we can temporarily revert to our old selves, but in the genuine believer, it is real and lasting.
And as I mentioned, having Jesus in our lives, means that we are making him present to others. 

The resurrection of Jesus means that Jesus is powerful, in a supernatural way, even today. 

Even today any person can call his name, and he can and does hear us, and he responds!

 

 

*footnote.  

Try getting in to Buckingham Palace. Besides physical barriers, locked gates, fences etc, there are plenty of armed guards. And if you did get in, somehow (without an invitation) would King Charles be pleased to meet you and give you his time and conversation? Even if we are interesting and intelligent, unless we are specifically invited, or we are part of the king's family, we have no place in Buckingham Palace, this is my way of explaining the word "Holy", which basically means especially separated.

the disciple whom Jesus loved.

This will be a quick one.

I am convinced that John used this expression about himself very deliberately. (Eg John 13:23)

This way of talking about himself might seem somewhat boastful. He never refers to himself by name, or as “me” only as “the disciple Jesus loved.”

But my point of view is that he used this description as a deliberate alternative to “the disciple who loved Jesus”, which no doubt, he did.

John states in his first letter that “We love, because he (meaning God) first loved us.”

In other words, our ability to love as Christians (to love God and to love our neighbour) is the fruit and result of God’s amazing love towards us, working powerfully in us.

John is not suggesting Jesus loved him more than anyone else, but simply that Jesus loved him before John loved him back. From this point of view, I find this phrase quite touching and humbly true.

We likewise could refer to ourselves as the disciples Jesus loved.

a fig page?

a bove

 

f rom

i s

g ift

 

p erfect

a nd

g ood

e very