Breaking Up the Hard Soil

I wrote a while back about the Parable of the Sower and whether the seed that is sown (the word of God) can sometimes act as a preparation of the heart – whether preparing one to receive Christ into one’s life or acting to further nourish the soil of one’s heart after coming to faith.

Here I want to concentrate on a profound action that sown seed can have upon soil: it can act to break up the soil and nourish it in order to be better equipped to produce fruit from further seed.  In olden times in Europe a method of crop rotation was used, and one year the field was left fallow, where clover or another similar plant was sown and although no crop was produced, the ground was in preparation for use the following year.

The soil of our hearts can be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Note how in Matthew 13:1-23 (the Parable of the Sower) Jesus talks about the different types of soil, the different conditions of our hearts, and the very different responses.  The hardened soil received the seed but didn’t bear fruit.  The good soil received the seed and the seed produced a crop.

(I am looking at this parable from the perspective of the “seed” being the “word of God”, or the words spoken by God – whether through prophets or Scripture.)

I am going to concentrate, in this post, on the condition of a Christian believer, and the condition of the heart – the soil of a believer’s heart.

Even with believers, we can sometimes find that our heart becomes hardened.  Here is how the writer of Hebrews puts it:

“But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” - Heb 3:13

Of course, the imperative here is that we should daily exhort one another.  Yet it also shows that sin is deceitful and can worm its way into our lives unawares, and that as a result the soil of our hearts can be hardened.

In this we can very easily see the pattern of a back-sliding believer – how things seem to get worse and worse.  The heart is hardening, and the seed of God’s word finds it hard to grow.  Often such a believer will hear Scripture and be filled with joy, go out rejoicing, and then a week later they’re back where they were, or worse.

What is needed here is a very specific seed: seed that will break up that hardened soil and make it fertile once more to receive God’s fruit-bearing seed.

The solution here is to use the word of God to “rebuke and correct”, as Timothy is instructed in 2 Tim 3:16-17:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” – 2 Tim 3:16-17 (emphasis mine)

In Paul’s letter to the Galatians we see him describing, in Gal 2:11-21, how he rebuked Peter for his sins of legalism and men-pleasing and corrects Peter back into the Way of Christ by declaring the truth to him.  This is an example of Paul sowing the seed that brings repentance.

In Psalm 51 we can see a deep and profound softening of David’s heart.  After his sins of adultery and murder, David was so hardened that when the prophet Nathan described David’s sins to him in a parable, David had no idea that Nathan was referring to him and he pronounced death upon the wicked man Nathan was describing.

Yet, when through Nathan’s prophetic words, David realised his sin, he was broken inside and wrote Psalm 51.

And here we can see that the “seed” that Nathan sowed in David’s heart had the effect of breaking up that hardened soil, it broke David’s heart.

This is the great thing that we see here: that the word of God can act to “break our hearts” – it is an earnest and deep repentance.  David declared in Psalm 51:17 – “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and contrite heart, O God, though wilt not despise.”

Let us learn to have a deep repentance and to receive the seed that brings us to deep repentance; and let us use the word of God to exhort one another daily and to wisely and gently sow the seed that is right for the season.

 

Sheep for the Slaughter – Psalm 44

The 44th Psalm is quite amazing in its declaration of the wonders and faithfulness of God even when the times themselves are not favourable to us.

We can learn from both the sons of Korah’s remembrance of the mighty works of God, and in the declaration of God’s faithfulness even when His help seems far away.

The Psalm begins with a remembrance of events that the psalmist did not even witness first hand:

We have heard with our ears, O God,
Our father’s have told us,
The deeds You did in their days,
In days of old.

Yet, as is plain in verses 9 to 16, that amazing blessing of God was not present in the days of the psalmist.

Though this is a wonderful lesson, I want to focus more on what the Psalm says prophetically to the Christian Church.  This Psalm was written some hundreds of years before Christ, yet in it the psalmist speaks clearly and prophetically of the Church – the Church that suffers yet still knows the Power that sustains her.

We, as Christ’s Body, can remember the great works done by God  in times past, yet the Psalm also speaks of our suffering, how God’s chosen people suffer, given up to persecution and reviling.  God’s people are not meant to be rulers in this age, governments are not meant to be subject to the teachings of the Church, the peoples of the nations are not meant to be forced to obey Christian principles.  What does God’s word say?

You make us a reproach to our neighbours,
A scorn and a derision to those all around us.
You make us a byword among the nations,
A shaking of the head among the peoples.

Psalm 44:13-14

This speaks not only of the situation the psalmist found himself in, but it also speaks prophetically of the sufferings of Christ, and Jesus Himself told us that “if they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.” – John 15:20.  The words of Psalm 44 speak, not of the glory of God’s Kingdom, but of the sufferings of God’s people – us!

Now if we do not suffer in this present age, do we then have fellowship with Christ?  Yes, we do, but how much more fellowship shall we have with Him if we share in His sufferings!  Paul said:

That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Phil 3:10-11

And, as we suffer for the sake of Christ, to be conformed to Him and His sufferings, we would do well to listen to Psalm 44.  As the psalmist prophetically declared both our victory in Christ and our weakness without Christ, our hope in God and our sufferings in this present age, we too can take great comfort in the scorn with which Christians are due from wicked men who do not know God.

We must not be surprised when men revile us – to those who are perishing we are the stench of death, but to those who are being saved we are the aroma of Christ.

As Paul states, quoting from Psalm 44 as he writes in Romans 8:36-37:

As it is written:

“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

 

Opening Doors and Ministry Purposes

In a discussion I have been having with a number of brothers on another site, the question arose in my mind about whether Christian ministries should be focussed in a narrow, preaching sense, or whether there is a calling to engage in other ministries that “open doors” for the preaching of the Word or even ministries that have little evangelistic purpose yet meet the physical needs of those being ministered to.

I phrased my question in the thread by asking:

In your discussion I understand that it is the preaching of the Word that is the gateway to enabling a person to receive salvation, hence the Great Commission. Yet what would you say to ministries that seek to “open doors” for the ministry of the Word, or ministries that simply seek to meet physical need without preaching the Word? (Two questions there, with quite possibly different answers.)

James Shewmaker, who initiated the conversation and is a man who knows the Bible well and presents his studious and prayerful insights into God’s word in a firm yet loving manner, replied:

Read all of John 6 from verse 1 to the end.

Then go back afterwards to verses 26 and 27.

Then read the twisted logic of verses 30 and 31.

Then read our Lord’s condemnation of their attitude verse 36.

The word of God opens doors, the word of God opens hearts. Christians can pray to God that he will open hearts. But when we abandon the power of Gospel we become like King Saul offering a sacrifice because he was not willing to wait.

Wait upon the Lord and trust Him that His word will accomplish its task!!!

All that the Father gives to me shall come to me; and him that comes to me, I will not cast out.

If you will accept it, there is your answer.

I made my mind to read John 6, and, this morning during my time of prayer I did, indeed, begin to read, asking that the Lord would so teach me, especially as my own ministry endeavours are not, primarily, ministries of preaching and evangelism yet include these as an intrinsic part.  I asked of the Lord that He would reveal to me what He (not my brother James nor myself) would have me hear.

I read from John 6 verse 1, yet when I got to verse 40 I strongly felt the Lord have me stop, and I meditated upon the verses I had read.  (You can read the chapter in your own time, but the passage covers the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus’ subsequent teaching that He is the Bread of Life.)

What struck me in this passage is how Jesus, first of all, has compassion and feeds those who came to Him in this event.  Yet more striking is how the teaching of Jesus being the Bread of Life follows on from the feeding, and how they act together.

Jesus used the miracle of the feeding to illustrate that He is the manna from heaven – the Exodus story of God giving the manna from heaven is merely a type of the Bread of Life, the true bread of heaven, that is, Jesus.  Jesus made a forceful remark towards those fed that they were making their bellies more important than the spiritual aspect (vv.26-27) and that the people (us) should seek the Bread of Life and not the physical.

Yet Jesus did use the feeding, both to open a door to His word and to meet a physical need out of compassion.

Would not then we also be wise to learn from this.  We cannot preach the word to a man whilst his belly cramps through starvation.  We cannot withhold water from a thirsty man and say “I will pray for you”.  We must have compassion, and so ministries that seek to show kindness and compassion are very much a part of the Christian calling, and such ministries can very well be used to open doors to the preaching of the Word.

Yet the overall aim of any Christian ministry should be to make disciples, in accordance with the Great Commission, and the overall motive of any ministry must be that of love.

If we neglect to preach the Word (that is, Christ crucified) whilst providing physical needs we will only succeed in letting well-fed people go to hell.  If we work from a motive that is any other than love for Christ and love for our fellow man, we will falter and stumble and be found to be false.

Love, mercy, compassion, kindness.  Jesus, the Bread of Life.

 

The Role of Government – Thoughts for the Post-Modern Age

The topic of the Role of Government has been very much to the fore of my thinking recently.  In the US there is a strong fight between those who believe in a libertarian philosophy of a minimalist central government (along with federal conservatives who, if I discern correctly, believe that the central government of Washington DC should be minimalist whilst the State-level government should be comparatively more to the fore) and a liberal progressive philosophy that sees an increased role for Congress and the White House in acting for the common good.

The notion of the Nation State has changed over the years.

Closer to home in the UK there is a profound, if sometimes muted, debate concerning the role of Europe, the role of the Westminster government, and the role of the regional assemblies and the administrative councils.

In my own meditations on this I have moved quite significantly towards an anarchist philosophy, which, though largely similar to libertarianism in the sense of the reduced or non-existent role for central government, differs in that anarchism sees a profound reformation of the market-driven system towards a more holistic approach as opposed to a profit and corporate-driven free market capitalism.

I was prompted further in these considerations by reading of Warren Buffet’s belief in TIME magazine, which he himself purloined from Martin Luther King Jnr.:

It may be true that the law can’t change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.

Does this, coming from a liberal mindset, indicate that perhaps the greatest role of government is not in the fighting of wars and the seeking after narrow “national interests” (a pursuit that has wreaked havoc on the world) but rather for the reining in of the very capitalist and “national interest” selfishness that modern-day democracies have left unfettered?

The anarchist philosophy (which I am no expert in although yearn to know more) is not so much the lack of governance but the redistribution of governance back to local city level and even sub-city level administrations and the separation of many law making powers to voluntary guilds and associations.  Such a situation would then be brought about whereby the Muslim could practice sharia to the extent that it did not impinge on a persons voluntary choice to remove from Islam or detract from the voluntary associations of other groups.  Yet the guild/association model would not only differentiate by religion, but by trade or political standpoint also.  The role of a central government, in such a case, would be not to make laws, but to be an arbiter between groups in any such time as a conflict arose.

Indeed, since the UK passed the Bill of Rights in 1689, the central English government (the king or nowadays the Prime Minister who holds Royal Prerogative) could not maintain a standing army in times of peace except with the approval of Parliament.  Parliament has relinquished that role of preventing large peacetime military build-up by constantly rubber-stamping a yearly renewal of the Armed Forces Act without any real Parliamentary debate.

The aim of this prevention of a peacetime standing army was by-and-large to prevent the king from subjugating the population and keeping the wheels of government on a democratic course, overseen by the Parliamentary arbiter.

Further back, the British Isles had a feudal system and even prior to that situation of effective fiefdoms there was a situation of a High King in many places in the Celtic world, whereby the High King was only one of many kings and that his main role was to be an arbiter over the rival kingdoms and fiefdoms of the realm.

The idea that government stands at the top and the poor man at the bottom, reversing the general ancient non-Empire principle that the king derived his authority from the people, was never the intention of the democracy movements of the past.

Perhaps, rather than being a centralised and increasingly unaccountable government that lays down the law and enforces it through the pseudo-army of the civilian police force, the government should rather allow a greater civil participation, localism and anarchism to hold sway, stepping in only when the system is skewed to favour a certain group over the legitimate concerns of another group.  The social inequalities that come from central governance in hock with a multi-national corporate empire, with the current prevailing prescription to solve it being to give more money and power to the centralised systems, cannot to repaired by simply moving towards more of the same but with double-portions.

Yet even if that is perhaps too radical a suggestion for this present time, we must be looking at what government can do for the interests of people beyond the narrow national interest and certainly beyond the idea that government should work to enable the best economic output and consumption that is possible.

The idea that government should be a brake on the wheels of prosperity is, perhaps, quite radical, yet in the modern climate it is hard not to say that the runaway economic excesses that benefit only those with a good inheritance or a good amount of the devil’s luck is shortly to cause far more harm than it has ever caused good.  With that said, perhaps the idea can truly take hold that government should act to suppress the heartless instincts of men greedy for gain, rather than encouraging them in the mistaken belief that relative poverty is only an illusion and that only absolute poverty is a matter of true concern.

As such, perhaps the best role for government now is not to be masters (even though elected by a supposedly democratic system) but servants:  to hold back the reins on the corruption that so beggars us all and to act as a redistribution system so that a greater proportion of wealth flows, not from the bottom to the top, but from the top down to the very least.

Less government, more taxes on the rich, and more freedom for people, within their communities, to make an impact on their own lives and the lives of those around them.

 

The Arab Spring and European Influence

The Arab Spring and European Influence
The Arab Spring has brought about a seismic shift in relationships between the Arab world and the Western nations.

The full fall-out from the ArabSpring has yet to come to light.  In Egypt, Yemen and Syria there are still many hurdles to overcome before it can be said that the dream has been realised.  In Syria especially the concept of a peaceful and prosperous post-Assad era remains a faint hope.

Even in Tunisia and Libya, there are many developments that could occur that would derail the transition to a democratic model of government.  A revolution happens quickly – building a viable state after a revolution is a tricky business.

Yet what of the West’s role in this?  Keen not to be portrayed as old colonial powers interfering in the Arab world, Europe has muddled through and taken each case differently, and except for the dramatic intervention in Libya, where mlitary support was openly given to the National Transitional Council, the EU response has been quite distinctly arms-length.

The question that should concern us is the potential for EU expansionist policies taking advantage of the Arab revolutions to further the growing might and influence of EU institutions.

The European Union has not, as yet, indicated any desire to expand its core membership beyond the geographical area of Europe, and it is at times a very reluctant expansionist – countries such as Turkey and Serbia are finding that gaining entrance into the EU is not a straightforward business.

Yet the potential for the great super-European expansion, firming the ultimate aim of the EU to become a single world power, is difficult to ignore.  Serbia would open the door to the former Soviet states and Turkey would open the door to expansion into the Arab world.  Already Europe has set up co-operation with those areas, and the ultimate global aims of Europe should not be ignored.

Do feel free to comment and agree or disagree with this!

 

Defending Our Rights?

On March 1st I wrote and posted an article on the Rabel WebPaper arguing that Christians should not be overly concerned with standing up for the rights of Christians in the UK, and should refrain from attempting to seek or further a special legal status in the UK political system.

In an amazing case of serendipity the Gospel Coalition also published an article arguing much the same thing, especially that the defence of Christian values should never be done if it is to the detriment of the Gospel.  (With a hat-tip to Arthur Sido for informing me of this article – his blog can be found here.)

Do take a look at these articles!

 

Preparation of the Soil

I began a Bible study sometime ago on the subject of fruit.  After an initial look at what fruit actually is, both in a natural sense and a Scriptural sense, I was led to consider the parable of the sower – when the seed (the word of God) fell on good ground it took root and brought forth a harvest (fruit).

Now, at this point I was inspired to consider this: the seed that fell on stony ground, or amongst thorns – what happened to this?  (You can read Jesus’ parable and meaning in Matt 13:3-9 and Matt 13:18-23.)

I was prompted to look at this further when a fellow servant, Miguel Labrador, asked on his blog about whether there is any such thing as “pre-discipleship”.  The question on our hearts is this: before the time of salvation, or before the time of fruit bearing, is there such a pre- time where the work of God is active in the heart of a person?

Looking at the parable, the seed that was sown on stony ground didn’t produce – but when seed is sown on stony ground it can, even though fruit is not produced, still grow to a degree and have a breaking up action on the soil.  Could it be that even when our hearts are not ready for the seed that will bear fruit, it is still worth feeding on God’s word (or, in the case of someone we know, feeding them with the word of God)?

I would be interested in views on this as I pursue the Bible study – what are your views of the idea of pre-salvation preparation of our hearts?  What are your views of an unfruitful believer?

 

Aspiring to greatness? Or for Jesus’ Name to be Honoured?

The following post I have directly purloined from a fellow blogger.  I do not usually do this, but it is just too good not to re-share.  Indeed, Arthur Sido, who wrote this, took it himself from a fellow blogger.  It is just superb.

Aspiring to be a nobody

Loved this from Dave Black yesterday regarding the desire to raise up leaders.

Personally, I’m not all that eager to raise up a new generation of leaders. I want to raise up a new generation of butlers and scullery maids. A generation of nobodies who are content to be obedient to the simple teachings of Jesus. A generation of Christ-followers who die to family, fame, fortune, success, patriotism, and the American Dream. A generation of Dietrich Bonhoeffers who realize that “when Jesus calls a man, He bids him come and die.” I want to raise up a generation of men and women who give without counting the cost, who deny themselves, who willingly take the cross as the path of union with Christ, in whom there is no trace of triumphalism, who put their lives at Christ’s disposal with unconditional surrender, who place Christian allegiance over their national allegiance, who act as though they were part of an upside-down kingdom, who die to all claims of the self-indulgent life, who refuse to lionize success or repudiate pain, who “share in suffering as good soldiers of Jesus Christ” (2 Tim. 2:3), who stand high and lift their drooping heads because the Son of God inhabits their lives in the power of His resurrection. We cannot all be seminary grads or professional ministers. But we can all be engaged in fulltime Christian ministry. We can all bring others to faith in the Savior. We can all be devoted to prayer. I am concerned not so much with raising up a generation of leaders but with training a generation of men and women who are consumed with a passion to understand Christ better and make Him known. This does not invalidate the educational enterprise. It gives it purpose.

I just liked that a lot. The best word in that entire paragraph? “Content”. If only we were content I think we would see so much more zeal for Kingdom work.

What is missed in so many circles is the utterly Biblical sense in which the true leaders in the church are universally the servants, the nobodies. Not only do we miss this, we tend to go in just the opposite direction. We raise men up, we elevate them, ordain them, exalt them. We buy their books and listen to the talks and attend their conferences. We cleverly drop their names and post their quotes on Facebook and Twitter. If they are dead, that is even better! I believe more each day that those who we will see as “great” in the Kingdom of Heaven will be people we never heard of or those we know but rarely paid attention to.

We don’t need more leaders, we need more nobodies!

 

Credit: Arthur Sido @ The Voice of One Crying in Suburbia

 

We the People of God – Our Citizenship is of Heaven

We are a People once not a people, but now the People of God
As Christians we cannot be separated by politics, culture, locality or language. We are One Body, and our first and foremost loyalty should be to God and then to each other

We cannot, seriously, be consumed in a system that pits Christian against Christian. Yes, we will sometimes (maybe often) disagree in areas where political, cultural or ideological views are divergent, and possibly all three to the extent that much of our political and ideological view is coloured by our cultural heritage. But we must not let that hinder the work of the Gospel nor let it hinder our love for one another.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the famous theologian, died in the concentration camps. His loyalty was not to his government nor his nation. His loyalty was to God, and he died for an attempt to bring WWII to a speedy end. In that way he showed more love to the many British and American Christians that were suffering in the battle against Hitler. Was he a traitor? No, because his primary nationality, his real citizenship, was heavenly, not German.

We must be careful, in our disagreements over whether the left or the right; the capitalist or the socialist; the libertarian or the anarchist, are correct or more correct, that we do not lose sight of the undeniable fact that, taking self-professment as sufficient and not an argument over doctrinal and practicable ideologies, President Obama is the brother of former President Bush, and they (and we) are a nation of God, not of the world.

 

Why I’m Breaking the #TwitterBlackout

I learnt of the Twitter blackout last night and was unsure how to approach it.  There is a real danger in this modern world to blindly follow the crowd and take part in actions that seem, on the surface, to be justified, yet when the details are examined it is found that such a course of action was unwarranted.

So I have approached the blackout by, firstly, not tweeting today until I had looked into the arguments further.  I have visited Twitter once to see who and what was posted on this day.

I have looked at some articles and viewpoints on the new Twitter policy of potentially censoring tweets, and I have come to the conclusion that Twitter is going out of its way to facilitate both legal requirements and the pursuit of free speech.

It must be remembered that Twitter has two roles, and that at times these come into inevitable conflict.  The first, and to users the primary, purpose is as a service.  As a service Twitter has enabled the propagation of information and views that have been a major contributive factor in the Arab Spring and movements in the West such as Occupy.

Yet Twitter is also a business, and as a business it has many legal and pragmatic problems and requirements.  To operate as a business in China, for example, it cannot ignore the laws and traditions of the Chinese nation, however much we in the West would want China to change its laws on freedom of expression.

Perhaps a less emotive example is that of Germany.  In Germany it is a crime to promote fascism or to deny the Holocaust.  Should these things be illegal?  It is debatable, yet the US and US companies should not be in the business of dictating morals and values to other nations except where there are flagrant breaches of fundamental human rights.  And on that matter Twitter has made clear that it will provide the service but not operate as a business in those countries where the divergence between the nations’ oppression and the values of Twitter are to a large measure.

In addition, Twitter seems to be making moves and signals that any censoring is made obvious and that users do have ways to circumvent the censorship.  To actually indicate the way to see censored tweets runs contrary to the authoritarian claims of the Twitter Blackout gang and shows that Twitter is doing its best to walk a tightrope between legal requirements and the moral requirements of free speech.

But another reason stands out for me in my decision to break the blackout: whilst the middle class anti-authority groupings in the West are taking part in this, Twitter is being used by those in Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen.  The moral case for taking part in the Twitter Blackout has, for me, collapsed.

So, this blog post is now Tweeted!