Blessed are the Peacemakers?

Ken Sande's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:4-7;

"Love always looks for reasonable ways to trust others, to hope that they are doing what is right, and to interpret their words and actions in a way that protects their reputation and credibility. This is the essence of charitable judgments. Notice that I said we should look for “reasonable ways” to believe the best about others. We are not called to suspend critical thinking in the positive sense or to make judgments that are contrary to clear facts. If we hear someone say something that is patently false or vicious, we can conclude that it is wrong and legitimately confront the speaker".

So on Wednesday I am hoping to conclude a drearily on-going process that has been running since the commencement of this blog. I will be meeting with the "Grace Church Bristol" pastors (SGM) to discuss the events of a few years back, what happened, why it happened and whether there is any way forward. For those who aren't familiar with my story, I wrote it here: "Grace Demands Radical Change!" - so won't repeat it.

But this has been a long time coming - and has only happened thanks in particular to my friend Steve who runs the blog; "I Kissed Dating Goodbye - Wisdom or Foolishness?". And it has also happened thanks to the gracious and kind nature of Pete Greasley - if I had detected any judgementalism from him, I would have disappeared as fast as! But I had some really encouraging times at lunch with him and also loved the visits to Christchurch, Newport.

I must confess I'm not hopeful. I am far too cynical now to hope for anything of encouragement from this - but this meeting is something that has to happen for my family's sake and for my sake - to hopefully bring closure to an unpleasant event that I've let drag on for far too long. I think and earnestly believe however that God can bring wonderful good out of this - that I DO believe in! The challenge is that I have absolutely no control over this meeting - it is all in God's hands.

The opponents of the anti-SGM blogs bring a single charge against the thousands who have shared how hurt they have been by C J Mahaney and his leaders - and that is; "Well you are commanded to forgive - just get over it". I agree - "total forgiveness" is a must (as R T Kendall teaches so well). It's very easy to forgive someone who looks at you in sincerity and says; "I'm sorry". The tricky challenge is to forgive someone who does not believe they have done any wrong.

So I am praying that I will be able to go to this meeting heeding this wise advice - Ken Sande says;

"Jonathan Edwards, one of America’s greatest theologians, thoroughly discussed God’s call for charitable judgments in his superb book, Charity and Its Fruits. Drawing on the passages discussed above (Matt. 7 and 1 Cor. 13), he shows that the Bible condemns censoriousness, which he defines as “a disposition to think evil of others, or to judge evil in them".

To NOT think evil of others or judge evil in them - and whatever I think of these two men and my views on their theology or their motives or the many actions that they have done - to think the best of them and to see Jesus Christ in them. I can't promise anything - but I'm sure going to try. I'm no model Christian - that's for sure! But on my gravestone - the epitaph will read; "He kept on trying!".

Please pray for me! 13:30 on Wednesday just outside London.

Condemned!! Or Not Guilty?

I try to be cautious these days writing a blog that may come across as attacking the views or expression of someone in particular. It's no secret that I've written angrily against SGM in particular in the past and particularly the church in Bristol - and I'm trying to address that in my own private way and make peace there. So believe me - I'm trying to learn and trying to grow! I'm even more cautious when writing against someone whom I am privilidged to count as a friend. That being said, I am so blessed to have the kind of friendship with Janelle that we do indeed disagree on many points of theology and Christian life - but know there is far more we do agree about. I've learnt a lot about SGM's way of life from Janelle and indeed she alongside Pete Greasley have probably been the most influential in softening my feelings!

So that context in place - a conversation has been happening on a post a few back entitled; "Curing the Gays" and this was prompted by the media interest in Philippa Stroud and her election campaign (incidentally I was interested to know that Mrs Stroud is now special advisor to Ian Duncan-Smith, the former Conservative leader) - to the dismay of some and the delight of others.

It was a conversation I was particularly taking seriously because a new Twitter friend of mine - a guy called Tom - has taken part and I was interested in his views and wanted to learn from his point of view. For heaven's sake - Christians are notorious among non-Christians for being obstinate and utterly inflexible. I don't want to propigate that (mostly) truth. If I am going to have any credibility with the people I want to share the good news with - then I want to know what's going on in their mind and their thoughts and learn why the good news of the gospel will be of use to them. So often the Christian world dumps the gospel out as it thinks the non-Christian world needs it - and can't understand why it's message is received as utterly irrelevant.

Janelle was involved in the conversation - but it was a comment she made that caught my attention and has had me thinking all day. She said;

"Tom, since the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin, so Christians must do the same".

There is some other context in the comment - considering how homosexuality is a worse sin in her view than gluttony - so I do recommend a read.

The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. So Christians must do the same.

Let's consider that carefully - because if it's true there are some implications for me personally. It explains to me maybe why I received the treatment I did at the SGM church in Bristol. If Janelle is right then the two church leaders were simply following the Biblical mandate to "condemn homosexuality as a sin". I had confessed to them that I had same-sex feelings so therefore condemnation from the church was rightfully deserved. And actually I am the one in sin for being angry and upset with what happened. She may be right.

Alternatively Janelle may be wrong and actually what right do Christians (sinners saved by grace alone) have to condemn ANYTHING?! Well clearly I have a vested interest in finding out. It may decide whether I ever enter a church again or not.

The Word: "Condemn(ation)".

1. Defined.

1. to pass an adverse judgment on; disapprove of strongly; censure

2a. to pass judicial sentence on; inflict a penalty upon
2b. to doom

3. to declare unfit for use or service

I find 2c; "To doom" particularly striking. I should note some of the definitions actually rather accurately describe some of the attitudes portrayed by the religious church. Does that make it right however? There's only one way to find out;

2. Useage in the Word of God.

Unsurprisingly the majority of the references to the word; "Condemn" are in the Old Testament. However there are some surprising references that foreshadow the coming of the glorious New Covenant and the gospel that must be mentioned;

Psalm 34:22: "The Lord redeems the soul of His servants - and none of those who take refuge in Him will be condemned".

I find that tremendous comfort knowing the struggling depths of my heart. I have felt so utterly condemned time after time by Christians who seem on the face of it never to put a foot wrong and are in fact shining lights in their churches - held up as model citizens and examples. I have frequently (and still do) asked God why on earth He ever called me. This verse says that those who genuinely take refuge in Him will NEVER be condemned. That's a promise.

Here's another interesting "Old Testament anomoly";

Isaiah 50:9; "Behold the Lord God helps me - who is he who condemns me? Behold they will all wear out like a garment. The moth will eat them".

I don't quite understand that promise from the Word of God - but I would not like to be in the position of someone who condemns those that the Lord God is helping. I don't know what the promise means - but I do not want to wear out like a garment or have a moth eat me. So far - I'm not fancying condemning those who the Lord God is helping.

Another;

Isaiah 54:17: "And every tongue that accuses you in judgment you will condemn - This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their vindication is from Me," declares the Lord".

This seems to suggest to me that in fact in His divine providence - the Lord actually reverses the tables on those religious who would condemn. "Every tongue that accuses you in judgement" - again the clear indication from the Word of God to me is that the Lord takes severe issue with those who attempt to do what only He should do.

There are of course other references in the Old Testament to condemnation - but not as many as I was expecting under an Old Covenant. Then we move into the New Covenant and the wonderful time of Jesus;

John 8:10-11: "Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either - Go From now on sin no more."

It's interesting that Jesus Christ asked the prostitute; "Did no one condemn you?". The Son of God knew that the religious community are somehow more than capable of condemning. But the key is in the answer. I do not condemn you either - on the basis of that declaration of freedom (and frankly who is going to disagree with the Son of God?) go in freedom and joy and live a life full of victory and peace and sin no more.

There are others but for now Romans 2:1 to close;

"Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things".

I would be extremely nervous of indulging in the discussion of "which is the greater sin - gluttony or homosexuality" that Janelle touched on. The Word of God is clear; "There is no impartiality with God". Sin is sin. And for that sin - there is a glorious solution. The Son of God went willingly to the Cross of Calvary and died for the sins of ALL Mankind. It is finished - meant it is finished. Every sin that offends and grieves God from time past to time present to the end of time was more than covered by the precious blood of the Son of God. Therefore;

Romans 8:1: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus".

2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation".

Our one and only message (as Julie said in her response comment) is the message of reconciliation. Terry Virgo said of condemnation;

"Condemnation is a WORK OF DARKNESS! It doesn't work! It has no power to change!".


Again - I would not relish indulging in activity that is entitled a "work of darkness with no power to change". Rather I choose to continue reaching out to the multitude of those who have not heard the full glory of the gospel - and far from condemn - make a full honest confession of my struggles and my journey. I am not going to pretend to be a "perfect, devout" Christian. I'd rather share with them my struggles, my journey - and how "this Jesus" has met me and loved me despite all I am and all I would be. THAT'S the miracle of the gospel!


Janelle - in all love and respect for you as a sister in Christ - condemn homosexuality if you feel you must and you should. Maybe you are confident of your sanctification to feel you can do that. But I remember again C J Mahaney's sermon; "Extravagant Devotion". And this quote in particular;


"He who has been forgiven much - loves much".


I used to wish that I really was a "perfect" Christian - whose worse sin was a bit of envy or a bit of pride. Or maybe a small bit of lust (because we're all men). But certainly not anything "bigger". Now actually I am beginning to appreciate what C J Mahaney was getting at. When you have experienced the depths of sin and struggle - you don't find much room in your heart for pride and arrogance. Me? I say again -

"The Cross does not have to be centred around me and be sustained by reflecting on my own personal failure! ... To insist on still calling myself a sinner could not add value to the Cross for me. Indeed, to call myself essentially a sinner actually dishonours the wonder of the gospel".

The ULTIMATE Church Discipline

It's about time to lay another one to rest. It is my conviction that the ultimate church discipline wielded by church leaders is taken from 1 Corinthians where Paul says;

" ... hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord".

Do I think that the church is more in danger of license and immoral behaviour or do I think the church is more in danger of legalistic overuse of verses like this to control God's people? Let Rob Rufus answer that one - he was speaking at the "Increasing Glory" conference in South Africa;

"But if the first question elders ask after getting the message of grace is; “What leverage have we got now if this is true?” – it shows how that they have been seduced by a spirit of witchcraft and are thinking themselves as moral policeman and are making the people behave with threats of withdrawal of favours, of ignoring them".

That to me is the litmus test. If church leaders hear the message of grace and their first question is this - then the problem is clear. And one piece of leverage that must be removed is the threat of handing "church members over to Satan". I have experienced it myself - and it is the most devastating thing that can ever be spoken to anyone. So what does it actually mean?

Well I am indebted to City Church International for taking the time to answer questions such as this. Here's what Rob and Ryan Rufus had to write about this Scripture and it's implications:

"Handing someone over to Satan - 1 Cor 5:

Handing a brother over to Satan is actually a very encouraging scripture, because it shows that even this brother who was involved in a terrible sin was born again and once his flesh was destroyed (once he dies) he will then go on to be with the Lord as any born again person does!

I don't believe it means Satan plays a part in getting the guy saved. What kind of gospel would that be? There's no precedent for that in scripture. I believe it means the guy is already saved. I think handing him over to Satan means just withdrawing any prayer support and covering over him. Basically giving up on him!

I really don't think we should practice this kind of thing to hastily as there's not enough scripture to build a strong enough case for us to do this and it's really not written to us but for a specific situation and I believe is the only reference to this kind of thing.

Any way later on we see that this guy repents and Paul says they should embrace him again. We really don't know what exactly happened to this guy to make him repent. We can speculate but the details are so vague and it would be very dangerous to try and build and promote a formula out of this situation.

Churches that are quick to try and practice these sorts of things will end up treating people with a judgmental pharisaical spirit. We need to be very wise about how we treat people. And slow to judge. Are they struggling with a sin or are they overtaken in a sin and influencing others to partake in it and teaching that actually there's nothing wrong with it?

So many people are quick to associate someone with the people that Jude talks about. To make anyone equal to the people Jude talks about is a very very serious accusation. Those people Jude talks of are very evil! I don't know many people if any like them. Most times when Paul, or Peter or even Jesus seem to come across harsh to people I don't believe they are attacking brothers and sisters and being ungracious, but are attacking a spirit- a religious spirit and a spirit that opposes faith in Jesus and anything that mixes the gospel with other things.

Handing someone over to Satan? I can't say I've personally done it or know anyone who has! Not sure if I would ever do it. Not sure if I'd even build a theology around it. Why? Because it seems like such an extreme thing to do and yet the scriptures don't give us a clear method or definition or urging to do it. To start developing a church discipline method for doing this could get you into some dangerous territory.

We need to be very careful with Corinthian scriptures as they are written to a specific people for a specific time that we don't totally understand. Some of it we can learn from but some of it is not for us. It was written for us but not to us.

1 Corinthians 5 about handing someone over to Satan is a very serious thing that we just don't have enough scripture to build a solid doctrine on. To form a practice or a standard for Church on this one scripture I believe is dangerous and will just end up in lots of judging going on in the church. Where do we draw the line between one persons sin and another’s? All sin is bad so why don't we just hand everyone over to Satan who just commits one sin?

I believe Paul warned them possibly, to not eat with 'such' people, because they were so weak and struggling with sin and would be so easily influenced. Like an alcoholic - I would suggest that they never go to bars even if they were going to drink a coke! It would be bad for them. Also they are obviously people who have come under deception and now just living in sin. They're not pursuing the gospel anymore and it's not helpful to hang around those people, but we mustn't write them off with pious self righteous judgment. Even handing them over to Satan seemed like a drastic but loving act towards them.

If our interpretation of scripture causes us to become self righteous and judgmental it usually means we are misinterpreting it and are putting law back into it. There should be such a liberating sense of grace about the scriptures that empowers people into freedom and cause people to get their eyes off themselves an onto Jesus and to put their faith and hope in Jesus not themselves".

To summarise - is it right to build a church discipline on one verse? Can we argue from context that this action was only applied (not even by Paul - but from the Corinthian church) in a situation where the sinner was unrepentant and influencing others? If even the apostle Paul gave this advice in a "last resort" situation then what business does a church pastor/elders have doing this quickly, judgementally and angrily? Any thoughts?

Casting Stones With Sin

I logged onto Facebook this morning and happened to glance at some vaguely interesting news that apparantly Ellen Degeneres was a guest judge on American Idol. I love Simon Cowell but that news didn't really bother me. It was a comment below that did and went something like this;

"Ellen DeGeneres is a SEXUAL PERVERT".

The individual went on to comment on how her surname seemed appropriate because she is indeed "degenerate". To be fair the person did finish by saying; "Having said that there for the grace of God go I". Well I found that the only amusing thing in the comment. The person leaving the comment was male. So it truly would be unfortunate if he became a lesbian and must, I guess, be attributed to God's grace that he does not.

A few caveats. I don't know this person (and don't have much of a desire to). This person (I am guessing) is probably a Christian but I don't know that. I am guessing that this comment is aimed at DeGeneres' sexual orientation but I don't know that.

But as you may guess by now - this comment upset me. To put it mildly. Once again the Christians are putting sexual orientation on a pedestal and seeing it as "the" worst sin. If this individual leaving this comment is a man then I would hazard a guess at some point he has lusted after a woman who is not his wife (or a man maybe ....). Therefore if we are consistent with the teaching of Jesus, he has committed adultery in his heart and certainly should be considering dealing with his sin by plucking his eyes out.

So why he is really any better than DeGeneres'? Why are any of us better than DeGeneres'? Why does her sexuality in this person's view disqualify her from a secular TV show? I would hazard a guess that the other American Idol judges just may partake in sexual practices that probably also would qualify as "perverted" or "deviant" in his eyes - such as sex outside of marriage? Or is it really homosexuality that fits the criteria?

I love Jesus Christ so much.

When a prostitute was dragged to Jesus to be condemned (and I wonder if this person would be included in that crowd doing the dragging) His response was classic. He did not defend the woman's sin. He did not throw a stone and sign her death warrant (as the Law demanded). He started simply writing in the sand and when He did finally say something, it was this;

"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

C H Spurgeon in a wonderful sermon on the Song of Solomon said this;

"The peril of self complacency increases in precisely the same ratio as the zeal of proselytising. When counselling others, you think yourself wise. When warning others, you feel yourself safe. When judging others, you suppose yourself above suspicion".

Ellen DeGeneres may indeed be "dead in her trespasses and sin" - but a comment like this really isn't going to make her wonder about her need for a gospel of grace. It's high time we all started listening to the words of Jesus Christ and dropping our stones where we found them and going home.