Category: Religion / Church

  • Lynn with Friends

    Lynn with Friends

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    Can an Legal Board make room for a Prophet ?

     

  • Whose “Rights” Should Be Protected?

    Whose “Rights” Should Be Protected?

    Photo by ©Kat Smith from Pexels

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    I notice that the Wall Street Journal says the Trump administration is planning to announce new exemptions for health-care practitioners who have “religious objections to performing procedures such as gender-reassignment or abortions”.  The critics say this is rolling back recent progress on anti-discrimination.

                               Not at all!

    It is pretty obvious that no matter which way the law is stated and enforced on these subjects, someone’s rights will be infringed.  This is a legal battle between two sets of religious beliefs.

    On the one hand there is the very large number of people who believe that human life is not just a highly evolved phenomenon, but is the sacred result of a personal creator who made personal beings in his image—and that they have full personal potential and incumbent rights from conception.  On the other hand, there are those who believe that human life is valuable, but not sacred and that the unborn child is really only a collection of tissue in the womb and should not have human rights.  Those are religious beliefs—actually ones which the evidence does not support.

    The issue of gender-reassignment usually divides opinion along the same lines.  Those who believe there is a creator who made us male and female are usually uneasy about gender reassignment.  That is not because of bigotry, but because the chromosomal picture is fixed and perfectly clear in more than 2449 cases out of 2500 babies born.

    If there is some dissonance between a person’s biological identity and their emotional identity, the emotions are more readily influenced towards change than the chromosomes which are fixed. 

    (It should not be necessary to point out that a person’s body almost always conforms to their chromosomes.) So, logically, we should help a person change their perception of themselves rather than start on a slow and very painful process of changing the appearance of the sexual parts of their body. We should also keep in mind that the hormonal and surgical process can never create as well as the normal process of procreation.  It is no wonder that a growing number of trans-sexual people are asking to change back to their original gender.

    Given all this, is it discriminatory to want the law to protect logical and defensible beliefs? 


    The law has to go one way or the other.  For those of us who hold the logical belief that only an infinitely wise personal creator could originate life as we know it, here is a little advice:  the primary commandment from our creator is that we should love him and love one another.  If we hold firmly, unshakeably to our beliefs, but express them in loving kindness, people who have the other belief will not be as likely to feel that this is about discrimination.  Remember, the main thing Jesus was scathing about was religious harshness and legalism.

    Lynn Green.

  • Transformation…C’mon, be serious!

    Transformation…C’mon, be serious!

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    Christians are talking about transformation.  What we mean is the power of the Good News to change lives and the power of those changed lives to transform society.  Really?  How can we talk that way when church attendance is in decline across the English speaking Western World?

    There are good reasons for our high expectations.

    In a recent blog I quoted my friend Asher Intrater, from Israel, who said, “The destiny of a nation is to be seen in its redeemed minority.”  That is a good, Biblical truth but is hard for many people to believe.  Most of what is written or broadcast in the mainstream media today is written from a non-faith perspective—and it takes faith to believe that a small minority group can influence the destiny of a nation.  The secular perspective is fed to us from all directions and often dominates people of faith too.  However, there is also evidence of the faith perspective from more than just Biblically recorded history.

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the nation of my citizenship by my choice, having been born in Colorado with citizenship in the USA.  This nation, the UK, has experienced one of the most dramatic and well-documented transformations in recorded history.  It would probably be best known by association with John Wesley and The Clapham Group with William Wilberforce.  There were other well-known figures who provided essential leadership (George Whitefield, John Newton, Hannah Moore and Henry Thornton, to name a few), but it was the tireless evangelism and discipling of John Wesley and the determined political leadership of Wilberforce that led to the abolition of slavery and the general transformation of society as they pursued their motto, “Making Goodness Fashionable”.

    The result of this social revolution began towards the middle of the 18th Century with open-air preachers whose audiences were mostly the poor and marginalized.  It took two generations of evangelism before there was enough momentum to be felt in all of society.  But from the beginning, Wesley in particular, saw that the Gospel had the power to change education, medicine and health, business, families—all of life.  He wrote about all those subjects.

    Historians note that the Gospel driven transformation led directly to global influence from Britain.  It also produced education for all, improved conditions for workers, freedom for all adults to vote and many other benefits, most of them “firsts” in the world.

    The other nation which could challenge the UK for the right to say they were leading the movement towards the “good life” for all was the USA, which had its own Great Awakening.  (It is interesting to note that George Whitefield crossed the Atlantic and preached to more people in the United States than he had in Britain.  See If You Can Keep It, by Eric Metaxis, for a thrilling account of the impact Whitefield’s preaching made on American communities.)

    As we read these great stories we tend to imagine that the majority of people become deeply committed Christians, then opposition faded away and “the good life” emerged.  But that simply did not happen.  Here are some facts:  (I am indebted to Dr. Martin Robinson and Herbert Schlossberg for their research.)

    . The established church was in steep decline.  Many churches were on their last leg.  One bishop found that a parish in a highly industrial area, near Chester, had over 40,000 people but not one person attended church.

    . The total percentage of the population attending churches other than the declining        established church was less than 2.5%.

    . Richard Hill was the first evangelical elected to Parliament and when he quoted the        Bible in a speech he was greeted “with prolonged roars of laughter”.

     . After nearly 50 years of evangelical preaching by Wesley and his “circuit riders” even Wilberforce, who was in the early stages of his career, wrote:   “Religion is on the decline amongst us and it continues to decline to this day.”

    . It would appear that no more than 5% of the population became committed followers of Jesus during the decades when Wesley was preaching.  65 years after Wesley first started preaching, another 20% became sympathetic enough to attend churches around the country.

    This is not consistent with our usual imagined picture of what transformation looks like.  But it does track well with Asher Intrater’s statement;

    “The destiny of a nation is to be seen in its redeemed minority.”

    My wife and I came to the UK nearly 50 years ago.  At the time, the Charismatic Movement was creating a huge stir and controversy.  In the first few months, we attended an astonishing and very large meeting at Westminster Central Hall in the heart of London.  There we saw leaders from many different denominations and organisations worshipping with abandonment on the platform.  The packed crowd were also from virtually every denominational or confessional background.  We had never seen anything like it.  A few months later, over 30,000 Christians filled Trafalgar Square for the Nationwide Festival of Light to pray for the nation and proclaim Biblical values.

    Over the decades since, hundreds of new churches have been established and untold thousands are meeting in small groups at work, in their homes and in schools to pray, study the Bible and reach out to others.  In many, perhaps most, towns there is a degree of unity between the churches that has been unknown in previous generations.  (That is certainly the case in the town where I live!  Several of the local churches have just begun a jointly sponsored Alpha Course, which is one of the most successful evangelistic outreaches of modern times and began here in the UK.)

    I could go on for pages with encouraging news about what Christians are doing in this country.  For example, without their social action to the poor and marginalized our social services would collapse.  No other group comes close to what churches and individual Christians do to alleviate suffering and provide opportunities to those who lack them.  But I won’t go on.

    There is another major factor that gives me hope.  The post-modern experiment in moral relativism is heading for a train wreck.  What we might call “progressive liberalism” is seen to be more disastrous as each year passes.  (It is hard to find a term that describes the many manifestations of post-modern philosophy, but to my mind progressive liberalism is closest.) It began with the attractive idea that morals are not absolute, but evolving.  At the beginning, over a century ago, only a few leading intellectuals dared to believe that “truth” is defined by social evolution rather than being self-evident and unchanging.

    “What is true for you is not necessarily true for me.”

    In the course of my life-time that view came to be held by most academics and then by those whom they taught in our universities.  Now it is widely held.  “What is true for you is not necessarily true for me.”  When that idea has been established it provides an irresistible invitation for influential people to manipulate public opinion to take society where they think it should go.

    To my mind, that social dynamic is best illustrated by the change in attitude to same-sex marriage.  Marriage had, for centuries, been a word that applied to a deep and serious commitment between a man and a woman, or in some cultures between a man and more than woman or even a woman and more than one man.  But it had never described a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.  But influential people decided that should change.  Ten years ago there was little chance any such move could succeed, but a media and entertainment campaign kicked off and we began to see positive images and stories about same-sex relationships more and more.

    When progressive liberals (in more than one political party) felt that public opinion had been sufficiently moulded, they introduced legislation to make same-sex marriage legal.  Something that seemed outrageously impossible to our parents became enshrined in law and anyone who disagrees must now be very careful about what they say or do.

    There are many examples of how this concept of evolving values has impacted us.  But the overall picture is one of increasing stress, dysfunctional families, attachment problems in children, eating disorders, self-harm, depression, more and more fraud, rising crime rates, lawsuits between neighbours—and the list could go on and on.

    how does this bleak outlook give me hope?

    So, how does this bleak outlook give me hope?  I think we could be like the citizens of the Roman Empire, or like 17th century Britain.  People become desperate for change. Early Church Fathers give us some insight into the power of the gospel.  Justin Martyr, in his effort to describe the difference the gospel made to some Roman citizens wrote:

    [The demons] struggle to have you as their slaves and servants, and…they get hold of all who do not struggle to their utmost for their own salvation – as we do who, after being persuaded by the Word, renounced them and now follow the only unbegotten God through his Son.  Those who once rejoiced in fornication now delight in self-control alone; those who made use of magic arts have dedicated themselves to the good and unbegotten God; we who once took most pleasure in the means of increasing our wealth and property now bring what we have into a common fund and share with everyone in need; we who hated and killed one another and would not associate with men of different tribes because of their different customs, now after the manifestation of Christ live together and pray for our enemies and try to persuade those who unjustly hate us, so that they, living according to the fair commands of Christ, may share with us the good hope of receiving the same things… The teachings of Christ were short and concise, for he was no philosopher, but his word was the power of God.   Justin, 1 Apology 14 (Rome, circa 150)

    Elsewhere he describes the strongholds of Roman culture as fourfold:  Magic arts, or the occult; greed; sexual adventure; and tribal hatred, or racism.  When these perverted values bear their inevitable fruit, people—at least some of them—wake up and hunger for a better way.  When that happened in Rome, increasing numbers became believers until the entire empire embrace Christian value.  (To some extent, though that is another subject.)

    Transformation?  Yes—really!

    So, yes, I am encouraged!  Social Christianity has largely died out in Europe and those who gather in the name of Christ now generally do so because of genuine commitment to follow Jesus.  Those believers are praying more, working more and believing more for transformation than ever before.  At the same time, more and more people are looking desperately for a better way.

    Transformation?  Yes—really!

  • “Thy Kingdom Come”

    “Thy Kingdom Come”

    Photo© Slava Bowman

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    AMAZING GROWTH IN WHAT USED TO BE “THE HARD PLACES”

    One of my good friends just came back from China after a trip to join with Chinese officials to launch the first officially approved study Bible in Mandarin, the main language of China.  He also met some pastors in the official Church and attended a service in a large church building that was constructed by the government.  The minister of this church said his biggest problem was finding a way to disciple the large numbers coming to faith in Jesus and attending his church.  He was baptizing another 100 new converts the next Sunday.

    My personal connections have been with the leaders of the unofficial Church in China.  A few years ago, when I was just getting to know some of these extraordinary people, the majority of them women, I was talking to one lady who has a great heart for the Chinese missions movement known as Back To Jerusalem.  Another person who knew her took me aside later the same day and asked if I knew much about her.  He then explained that she has been an extraordinarily fruitful person for decades.  “She knows what it is to lead 10,000 people to Christ in a day!”

    Do the Chinese people believe their prayer, “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done…” is being answered?  Surely they do!

     

    My recent article about the Middle East provides another context for that question.  Anyone can see that there is unprecedented growth in the numbers of people following Jesus.  The figures are not yet statistically impressive, but with hundreds of millions of people in that part of the world, only tens of millions would be statistically significant.  But the numbers are huge when compared to any time in the last 13 centuries.  Do the faithful there believe that the Kingdom is coming?  They certainly do!  There was such buoyant faith in the meetings I attended in the Gulf and in Egypt.

    THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT

    Our context always shapes our perspective.  Most people who live around where I live, in Europe (or islands off the coast of Europe, depending on your politics), would not think that the Kingdom of God is on the move.  Marti and I have lived in Europe for nearly 50 years now.  When we first came, it was during the exciting days of the charismatic movement.  We attended meetings of thousands of people from many different churches and denominations and excitement was in the air.  Soon after we moved here in 1971, over 25,000 people gathered in central London to proclaim the name of Jesus in the Nationwide Festival of Light.

    About 15 years later I helped convene 55,000 people for a prayer meeting that grew to global proportions and became known as March For Jesus. I think it was 1992 when I stood on a stage in Hyde Park, London and looked over a crowd of 100,000 worshiping people.  It certainly felt like the Kingdom was coming!

    DISTORTED CONTEXT

    On the other hand, I recently read an article by a British journalist, similar to articles I have read from time to time, in which he quoted the official statistics of church attendance and concluded that Christianity is disappearing in the UK and Western Europe.  He concluded with a well-worn sentence;

    “Will the last person leaving the Church please turn off the lights?” 

    That’s the way it seems from his context.  Context makes a difference. But I have to ask, are the statistics he is referring to reliable pointers to the health of the Christian faith?  The picture I see is quite different.  I see that:

    Much of the vitality of the charismatic movement is now expressed in small groups and congregations that meet in homes, school auditoria, town halls, business facilities, warehouses etc.  No one could accurately track the numbers.

    If we simply poll the traditional denomination HQs and measure the numbers meeting in official church buildings, the results are negative and can be extrapolated to the point when they will be zero.  But that picture is not representative of the Body of Christ.

    Because it is no longer socially important to attend church, those who do, most often do so out of genuine commitment to follow Jesus.

    There are church planting movements that are becoming more dynamic and statistically significant every year, especially in the Church of England.

    Almost every church in our town has grown significantly in the past decade and there is more mutual respect and unity than any time in recorded history! I hear that in town after town in Britain.

    I’M OLD ENOUGH TO DO A LITTLE HISTORY

    When Marti and I first moved to London, we could not find a church with obvious spiritual life. But we did find a curate (if you are not familiar with that term, it is kind of a trainee minister) at a small church with a big building by the name of Holy Trinity Brompton.  Nicholas Rivett-Carnac conducted small healing services and prayed for life in HTB.  Today that church has world-wide impact through the Alpha Course and has packed multiple weekend services to cope with the crowds.  It has also planted congregations that plant congregations that plant congregations… so that no one can count how many churches have been impacted.

    I conclude from all this anecdotal evidence that “social Christianity” has died in the past 7 decades but that genuine faith and discipleship has grown many times over.  I also conclude that the move away from institutional church and towards informal but consistent fellowship between believers is very hard to track and no journalists I know of have even made an attempt.

    THE BLINDNESS OF HUBRIS

    Speaking of journalism, there was a recent discussion about why the BBC should produce more religious broadcasting.  In the course of that discussion the head of religious broadcasting, James Purnell, identified himself as an atheist. He also confirmed that the BBC would be increasing the number of religious programmes.  However, in the light of “the steady decline of Christianity” they would be sure the programming is of a multi-faith nature.

    One third of the world’s population identify themselves as Christians!!  Where has this man been?

    Well, he has been in the context of the “educated liberal elite” many of whom have somehow come to believe they are in the majority, even though they are a very small minority in this world. His response in a recent interview demonstrates the approach of so many of the liberal elite to religion.  A broadcast journalist asked him, ‘Are you a religious man?’, to which Purnell replied: ‘I’m not…I’m an atheist but I think the issues around belief are incredibly important to how we live. But not important to how HE lives?

    These are the people who feed us information about our world, either directly or indirectly.

    But they do so from a sort of echo chamber of like-minded people and their context warps their perception and conclusions.  Almost everything they say about the Christian faith has to be seen through the knowledge that they don’t know nearly as much about the world as they think they do.  Constant immersion in the society of the highly educated elites dulls the senses.

    TWO WAYS TO SEE THE WORLD

    I am grateful that, over the decades, I have travelled to so much of the world on a very small budget.  So I don’t often stay in hotels; I am not hosted by powerful people; I don’t travel on private jets or in first class.  I usually live with local people at their level, eat their food, meet their families etc. On every continent and virtually every nation there is evidence that the Kingdom of God is growing—but that evidence is usually seen at grass-roots level.

    Once a person becomes either rich or powerful they can no longer see the world like that.  Sadly, most of our elite leaders have never lived at a time when they could mingle with normal people in different parts of the world.  They don’t know what it is to see reality without it being “managed” with political or financial motives in mind.  Wealth and power are terribly isolating!

    All that is about context.  You might continue to hear, from journalists and broadcasters in parts of the the developed world that Christianity is dying out.  Sympathize with the predicament of their context, but more importantly, remember, their view is usually blinkered.

    “THY KINGDOM COME” is being answered like never before in the history of mankind!

    Lynn Green.