The unscriptural position of 'gay but celibate'

The wedge of compromise is always driven in at the thin end, something that is as true when dealing with the issue of homosexuality as it is with any other matter. Many evangelical churches today still take a faithful stand against same sex marriage, and denounce all homosexual acts as sinful. Yet where the compromise is increasingly being found is on the issue of homosexual desires, with a growing acceptance of the 'gay but celibate' argument. The concept of 'living out' as a Christian has been promoted by men such as Sam Alberry, with the term 'same sex attracted Christians' replacing homosexual, and gaining an increased acceptance. In most cases the groups advancing this view are teaching that homosexual acts are sinful, however the matter of 'same sex attraction' itself is not necessarily so. Is this approach biblical and one that we can accept, and what should our response be to this agenda?

Christianity: Religion or relationship?

How is genuine Christianity best described; as a religion or a relationship? The phrase 'it's not a religion, it's a relationship' is very popular today; often used as a response to the dead religious formalism that is found in many churches, instead placing an emphasis on the personal nature of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Christianity is not simply a matter of religious observance and participation in certain sacraments, but rather it is a living faith which extends beyond these outward acts and affects every aspect of our lives. It can therefore rightly be described as a relationship. Yet on occasions the rejection of the term 'religion' in favour of 'relationship' is used in ways which are not in keeping with God's Word. Is the description of our faith as a religion to be rejected? How also might the term relationship be abused when describing our faith? 

The use of the word religion is not wrong, and indeed it is found in the Word of God on several occasions. James 1:27 says that 'pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world'. There is then a religion which is described as pure and undefiled in the sight of God, a religion which evidences itself in Christian love and holy living. The word translated religion in this verse (threskeia) is also translated as worship in Colossians 2:18, and true religion can well be described as the worship of God; worship that is an attitude of the heart and not simply an outward act. True religion will be a living faith, and the deadness of much religion today does not negate the suitability of describing biblical Christianity as a religion. It is however true that a person can have religion, yet not have Jesus Christ. The outward acts of religion must be the evidence of an inward reality, and not the sole substance of a person's religion. 

It is in response to dead religion that many define their faith primarily as a relationship, and the use of this term is not wrong either. It is through the work of the cross that we have received 'the adoption of sons' and are now 'joint heirs with Christ'. Jesus Christ is a personal saviour, and is that 'friend that sticketh closer than a brother'. There are however occasions when the phrase 'it's a relationship, not a religion' is wrongly used. It is sometimes cited by professed Christians in repose to being challenged over how their lifestyle conforms to the Word of God, or when there is any insistence upon certain moral and theological standards. This is increasingly common in today's climate of easy believism and non-confessional Christianity. Renowned theologian Louis Berkhof is quoted as saying 'Religion is concerned with man's relation to God, and man has no right to determine the nature of this relation'. The relationship which we have with Jesus Christ is based solely on the Word of God; as with any human relationship there are rules and constraints which define it. In the relationship between a husband and wife there are expectations one to another; expectations of conduct, faithfulness and obedience. Where these are not adhered to the relationship will be strained, and may break down altogether. The personal relationship between Christ and the believer is not one where the obligations set down in God's Word can be rejected as 'religion' in favour of some self defined notion of relationship. To be in a saving relationship with Jesus Christ there are certain truths which we must believe, and certain moral standards to which we must adhere. 'It's not a religion it's a relationship' is not an acceptable response when challenged on any issue of faith or practice, nor it is suitable grounds for the rejection of creeds and confessions. 

Although Jesus Christ is a personal saviour to each of us, the uniqueness of our relationship with Him does not extend to what we are to believe or how we are to conduct ourselves. We do not define the terms of the relationship, but rather God does. What is required of one of God's children is required of all when it concerns what we believe and how we live. In John 14:15 Christ said 'If ye love me, keep my commandments'. It is not legalistic religion, but a true understanding of our relationship with Jesus Christ that causes us to obey his Word. Is true Christianity a religion or a relationship; it is both, a personal, living faith, based on the clear unchangeable truth of God's Word. To attempt to define our faith as a relationship outside the constraints of biblical theology is instead to hold to man-made religion. 

The Minimum Christian

The following article was published by Rev C.H. Spurgeonin the Sword & Trowel in 1876 

The minimum Christian! And who is he? The Christian who is going to heaven at the cheapest rate possible. The Christian who intends to get all of the world he can, and not meet the worlding's doom. The Christian who aims to have as little religion as he may without lacking it altogether.

The minimum Christian goes to worship in the morning; and in the evening also, unless it rains, or is too warm, or cold, or he is sleepy, or has the headache from eating too much at dinner. He listens most respectfully to the preacher, and joins in prayer and praise. He applies the truth very judiciously, sometimes to himself, oftener to his neighbours.

The minimum Christian is very friendly to all good works. He wishes them well, but it is not in his power to do much for them. The Sunday School he looks upon as an admirable institution, especially for the neglected and ignorant. It is not convenient however, for him to take a class: his business engagements are so pressing during the week that he needs the Sabbath as a day of rest; nor does he think himself qualified to act as a teacher. There are so many persons better prepared for this important duty, that he must beg to be excused. He is very friendly to home and foreign missions, and colportage, and gives his mite, but he is quite unable to aid in the management, for his own concerns are so excessively important. He thinks there are 'too many appeals'; but he gives, if not enough to save his reputation, pretty near it, at all events he aims at it, and never overshoots the mark.

The minimum Christian is not clear on a number of points. The opera and dancing, the theatre and card playing and large, fashionable parties give him much trouble. He cannot see the harm in this, or that, or the other popular amusement. There is nothing in the bible against it. He cannot see why a Christian may not dance or go to the opera. He knows several excellent persons who do so; at least, so he says. Why should not he? He stands so close to the dividing line between the people of God and the people of the world, that it is hard to say on which side of it he is actually to be found.

Ah, my brother, are you making this attempt? Beware, lest you find at last that in trying to get to Heaven with a little religion, you miss it altogether; lest without gaining the whole world, you lose your own soul. True godliness demands self denial and cross-bearing, and if you have none of these you are making a false profession.

The Lord's Supper: This neglect?

In the late 1630's the religious liberty of Presbyterians in Ireland was so restricted that it was often necessary for them to travel to Scotland in order to receive communion. Rev John Livingstone, then minister at Stranraer, recorded that on one occasion 'over five hundred persons from County Down crossed the sea to receive the sacrament at Stranraer'. What an example that is of the spiritual desire of God's people, that they were prepared to take a boat trip across the Irish Sea for the sole purpose of a communion service. There is no doubt that today the situation has changed dramatically. Whilst there is freedom to worship according to conscience and to remember the Lord's death in a scriptural manner, the Lord's table is neglected by many believers. The attendance at most communion services is but a fraction of the attendence at the preceeding or subsequent Sunday service.

Taking your bible to church

It has always been my normal practice to take my bible to church. Growing up in Sunday School you always took your bible with you. Going to Youth Fellowship meetings you took your bible. At the regular church services and at prayer meetings you likewise had your bible. The very idea of going to church meetings, where you would hear the word of God, without having your own copy of the scriptures was completely foreign. Yet today there does not seem to be the same habit of taking your bible to church as there would have been just a few years ago. A Christian radio show in America recently commented on how they had surveyed the thousands of people going to a US mega church, yet found that literally only a handful were carrying a copy of the Word of God. Why is this becoming so common today among Christians and why is it always important that we take our bible with us when we go to worship God?

The cure for church hopping

In our last post we considered the issue of Church hopping. Four observations were made on this matter. Firstly that it is a sign of theological shallowness; we have surely little depth to our faith if we are able and content to regularly move from church to church. Secondly, it does not produce useful Christians; those who cannot settle in a church are rarely of much use in the churches they frequent. Thirdly, it is discouraging to other believers; the constant to-ing and fro-ing benefits no-one. Finally it is detrimental to the children of believing parents who need stability in spiritual matters as much as anything else. Having considered these things it would be wrong not to consider what can be done to cure the problem of church hopping. For those who are guilty of it, what can they do to stop themselves continuing in this course, and for those who have never done it how can they prevent themselves from falling into this fault.

Church hopping

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was the greatest and most popular preacher of his generation. Many would argue that he was the greatest preacher of any generation since the time of the apostles. People came from all over London and further afield to hear him preach, with over 5,000 people regularly hearing him preach at the Metropolitan Tabernacle every Sunday. Yet on one occasion, having seen those from other congregations in his church, he made the following statement:

By the way, looking round here, I think I know some of the persons present who belong to neighbouring chapels. What business have you here? Why did you leave your own minister? If I see one come into my place from the congregation of another brother in the ministry, I would like to give him just a flea in his ear such as he may never forget. What business have you to leave your minister? If everyone were to do so, how discouraged the poor man would be. Just because somebody happens to come into this neighbourhood, you will be leaving your seats. A compliment to me, you say. I thank you for it; but now, in return, let me give you this advice: those who are going from place to place are of no use to anybody.

The fault which Spurgeon had identified in many believers in his day is one which is still prevalent today; that of church hopping. Church hopping essentially exists in two forms. Firstly there are those who associate themselves with a particular congregation, have done so for years, and who faithfully attend the Sunday morning services there every week. Yet on Sunday evenings they might be found anywhere, depending on what has taken their fancy that week. Then there are those believers who will attend a particular church for several years, get involved in the work to some extent, then become disillusioned with that church and go elsewhere, only for the cycle to repeat itself again at another church in three or four years time. Occasionally they may return to a church they had previously attended, but over their lifetime they never settle in one place, but are continually moving from church to church.

Church hopping is not something that is to be approved of, or considered as acceptable behaviour for a Christian. There are of course occasions where it is right to leave a church, for example where that church has compromised on the truth of God's word and departed from the truth of the gospel. It is also natural to change churches if you move house, as it may no longer be practical to attend your current place of worship. This however is the exception; changing church should not be a regular occurrence, nor should it be a habit to be absent from your own Sunday evening services simply for the purpose of going somewhere else. There are four observations that we would make on church hopping.

1. It is a sign of theological shallowness
What church do you currently attend? Let us say that it is of some Presbyterian persuasion. You have chosen to attend that church because you believe in what it teaches about the word of God. The reason you do not attend a Methodist or Anglican church is because you do not agree with their teaching to the same extent. Yet with church hopping denominational distinctives are often meaningless. People can go from Presbyterian to Baptist to Brethren to Elim to Methodist and back again without any thought or concern for what theological differences may exist between them. From reformed to charismatic to dispensational, church hopping often involves a very big hop! We are not implying that there are not believers in all of these groups, for clearly there are, yet the differences between them are still significant. If you can jump from one to the other, attend one place in the morning and another in the evening, then the question does need to be ask; what do you believe? The theology of a church seems to be of so little importance today when choosing where to go, yet in truth this is the most important factor to be considered when choosing a church. If we move from church to church based on the activities that the church provides, or because of it's current popularity, without any thought for what it actually teaches, then it is difficult to say that we are not shallow in our theology. We must know what we believe and be convicted of it.

2. It does not produce useful Christians
In the words of Spurgeon which we quoted earlier he finishes with this line; 'those who are going from place to place are of no use to anybody'. He also made the following statement in relation to church hopping; 'To be driven from church to church, as some are, is a wretched business. To be like others, changing their views as often as the moon; happy nowhere, miserable everywhere, agreeing with nobody, not even with themselves, is a poor business'. If we are no sooner settled in a place than we are going somewhere else then we will never be of any use in the work. To only be in attendance on Sunday mornings, and always traveling the country going to other meetings on a Sunday evening is not a sign of usefulness, but of unreliability. Such an attitude will not encourage the leadership of the church to give that person any responsibility for if we cannot commit ourselves to being at two Sunday services in our church, how can anyone believe we would be any different if we were to lead some aspect of the work. To be moving from church to church belies an attitude that the church exists to give us what we want, and when we do not feel that it is doing that then we will go elsewhere. Yet the responsibility lies of the shoulders of every Christian to contribute to the work of the church themselves. If we cannot settle in a church then it is unlikely we will ever be of any great use to the Lord. 

3. It is discouraging to other believers
The desire of every church pastor, elder, leader and member is that the work in which they are engaged would be built up. It is a great encouragement to them when new people start to attend the church and get involved in the work. It is however a great discouragement when those same people leave within a couple of years. It may be of brief encouragement to that new church where they started to attend, however if they continue in this cycle (as is so often the case) they achieve little more than discouraging people in every church they attend, rather than just one. God's kingdom is not advanced constant uprooting, Christians are merely recycled. The same is true of those who attend their home church in the mornings yet always find somewhere else to go at night. For those who are faithful in their attendance at church it is discouraging when they see that others are not so, and for the leaders of the work such people provide little more than a temporary hope. Hebrews 10:25 states calls us to not forsake 'the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another'. To move from church to church, here in the morning, elsewhere in the evening does not do this, but is rather detrimental to all concerned.

4. Its is detrimental to the children of believing parents
How many parents believe that it would be beneficial for their children to change schools every couple of years? It is unlikely that any would see this as being a good thing, for it would be disruptive, and have the risk of a negative impact on their education. Can we then believe that it is any different spiritually? Certainly it is likely to result in the children following that same pattern as their parents when they are older. If their learning in school is important how much more so is their spiritual education. The difficulties which face young people in today's world are immense, and are not made any easier by a regular movement from one church to another. They will know little of what they believe and even less of why they believe it. If a child, at the age when it is most impressionable, is exposed to such a lax approach to choosing a church, then it is likely that they will worship anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere! Just as a fountain cannot rise above its source, so it is unlikely that the next generation will fare any better than the previous where people are in the habit of church hopping.

Are you guilty of church hopping? Has your Christian life been one of constant movement from this church to that, or of regularly being elsewhere on a Sunday evening? Consider these thoughts and pray that you would have done it for the last time. Commit yourself to the work where you are and know why you are there.

When our faith becomes a fad

What is a fad? The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as 'an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived; a craze'. It is a temporary trend or idea that is popular for a while, and followed enthusiastically by people for the time that it is in vogue. Very quickly however it will be replaced by another trend and that which had previously been in fashion is discarded in a manner that belies its earlier popularity. We can see this on social media, in how people dress, in what music they listen to, and in many other things. People will go with what is in, and whenever it ceases to be so they will move on to the next trend.

The question we wish to ask is this; is it possible for our faith to become a fad? Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians warned them against being 'tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine'. Of those in Athens it was said that they 'spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing'. Whilst those whom Paul wrote to in Ephesus were believers, and those in Athens to whom he preached to were not, yet all could be susceptible to the same fault of looking for and following after new and fanciful teaching.

Punctuality for church: 5 reasons why we should practice it

Whilst on some occasions there are genuine reasons why people cannot be punctual for church meetings, such as work commitments or family difficulties, in general it is not a practice that we should allow ourselves to fall into. Unforeseen circumstances may cause us to be late occasionally, but it should not be our habit to be late for church services. We should seek to be at the house of God early, for whilst it may be 'better late than never', it is even better to be never late. We do not like to be late for important appointments in our employment, or in our social life, and so it should also be the case when it comes to religious worship. We give 5 reasons why we should be punctual for the worship of the Lord.

The Christian living for the weekend

Many people today live for the weekend. Their employments and duties during the week can be endured only with the prospect of 5 o’clock on a Friday evening when they can once again engage in their social life. The entertainment of the world is all that keeps them going during the week; once Saturday night has ended it appears to them that those things which they enjoy most are finished for another week. Next Friday cannot arrive soon enough for them. When we make this statement you might imagine that we are referring to unbelievers, yet it is equally the case with many Christians. They too, like the world, look forward more than anything to those social events at the weekend when they can get back to enjoying themselves. Whilst a time of lawful recreation and relaxation is not to be denied, the spiritual benefit or appropriateness of that which many Christians involve themselves in is questionable to say the least. Are our weekends spent more in the company of the unsaved than with our fellow believers? Do we find ourselves at ease with, and desirous of the atmosphere and pleasures of the worlds entertainment? Is this not a cause for concern? The weekend ought to be a time that the Christian looks forward to, yet for a different reason to the world, for the reason that it includes that one day in seven set aside for the worship of God. Do we look forward to the weekend because we have a hunger for the preaching of God’s Word, or do we live for the weekend in the same manner as the world?

'Christianity Lite' - The most popular brand in today's church

Many manufacturers and companies today will offer their products in a 'lite' version. It may be food producers with their low fat and diet products, described as being more healthy, same taste but better for you. It can be software manufacturers selling simpler, trimmed down versions of their products. It can indeed be a great variety of items, all marketed as 'lite', lacking in those things which are considered either undesirable or unnecessary. The purpose is that we can choose the version which suits us, with just what we need but nothing more. Such an approach is also evident in the form of Christianity which many adhere to today, even in reformed evangelical circles. Many believers only have a desire for a 'lite' Christianity, one which places no great demands on them, but which gives them just what they need and no more; their passage to heaven, but with no 'added extras' which might cause them inconvenience. This lite Christianity appears to be more popular than any other form today, yet just as many lite products in the supermarket lack that real flavour, so lite Christianity lacks the real substance of a living faith. There are many evidences of this lite Christianity in congregations today, yet it is something which is detrimental to the church and to the lives of believers.

Man's purpose in life

The question has often been asked, what is the meaning of life? It is similarly phrased in the first question of the Westminster Short Catechism with 'What is man's chief end?' The answer given is that 'Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever'. This matter is well considered by Thomas Vincent in his book 'The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture' where he ask the following questions, all of which with their answers, are well worth us taking our time to consider:

Q. 1. What is meant by the chief end of man?

A. The chief end of man, is that which man ought chiefly to aim at or design, to desire, seek after, and endeavour to obtain, as his chief good and happiness; unto which his life and his actions should be referred and directed; which is the glorifying of God, and the enjoying of God for ever.