Born again? Me?

Jesus said, "You must be born again." To which people today reply, "What me?"

A generation ago, the need to be born again was not only a central feature of the gospel, as it is in every generation; it was also effective element in an evangelistic presentation because it reflected a sense of need with which the hearers resonated. Today is very different. Unbelievers have a hard time with the concept of being born again for a simple reason: why do I need to be born again when there was nothing wrong with the first time?!

The sunnily optimistic view of man's nature has now been almost universally adopted. This takes the ground out from under our evangelistic endeavours. The genuine good news that Jesus came to deal with the problem of sin seems irrelevant to those who have already believed the false good news that man is inherently good.

If I am good already, the only good news I want to hear is about how my life can be better. Better healthcare, better education, better economic growth, better environment - all the hot button issues every time an election rolls around. And, sadly, the promises that the politicians make offering good news of 'change for the better' in these very issues is mirrored in the good news promised by preachers of a gospel now geared to the felt needs of a new generation. The prosperity gospel and the prosperity political platform platform are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. It's the only good new that people who have believed the apparently good news that I'm a good person really want to hear.

Paul's masterful approach in Romans is the only way to go. People need to believe the bad news about human sinfulness before they can hear the good news about salvation. There are at least two grounds for encouragement of preachers and those engaged in personal evangelism if they will pursue this counter-cultural approach.

The first is pragmatic. G.K Chesterton was right in observing that original sin is the one scientifically verifiable doctrine of Christianity. A 1999 study by Montreal University psychologist Richard Tremblay surveyed 511 children under 18 months of age. His work, published in Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, may not have technically been the scientific discovery of original sin, but it clearly demonstrates that there is something flawed in human nature long before an imperfect environment spoils us. He discovered that 70% of infants grab things, 46% push, 27% bite, 24% kick, 23% fight, and 21% physically attack. This is before the little darlings could have learned such behaviour. Perhaps the most effective form of pre-evangelism would be to spend a couple of days in a pre-school.

But the second reason for hope is that the Holy Spirit has been sent with this express purpose: "He will convict the world concerning sin..." (John 16:8). He has the facts on his side, and his power is not limited by the falsehoods of the intellectual fads of our generation. The Gospel still is the power of God for salvation. It is good news, even for people who have no sense of needing the good news. You must be born again! What me? Yes, even me!

Mouth-to-Mouth resuscitation

Virtual relationships are both common and commonly condemned. Facebook posts are frequently made but also frequently disparaged - as trivial and superficial. In the new reality of cyberspace, the cry for good old-fashioned real relationships rings out. But this is not a new problem.

When John wrote his second letter, he was not struggling with the trivialization of relationships caused by social media and electronic devices. For him the problem was how paper and ink hindered real communication. So he wrote (note the irony here that this is what he wrote): "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face that our joy may be complete" (v.12).

Complete joy, relational fulfillment undiluted by inadequate forms of communication, was only possible face to face. This, after all, was the disciple whom Jesus loved; he enjoyed a relationship that was not lacking key components. It included sitting at table together eating, reclining, conversing. John knew that his relationship with Jesus had not been limited by the constraints of what can be written on paper; Jesus was his friend, not his pen-pal.

However, John was not a proto-Luddite. He was well aware of the impediments of pen and papyrus, but he was still a letter-writing apostle. He used the media of his day to good effect. And, as such, he is a model for us, a prototype blogger.

He knew the limitations of the available media and stayed within those boundaries. He wrote a lot and he still had much to write. He would rather not use paper and ink, but he did use paper and ink. Perhaps that is a good attitude to have toward cell phones and blogs and e-mails. It's fine to use such media so long as we would rather not! When we prefer facebook to face-to-face we are in trouble.

The fact that he genuinely preferred personal conversation to writing with paper and ink is seen the fact that while he had much to write to "the elect lady and her children" (v.1), he actually did not write much at all to them. The word "paper" here refers to papyrus, and a short letter like 2 John would comfortably fit on one papyrus sheet of about normal size. He limited himself to the restrictions of the medium.

In some ways this is a frustrating little letter. We have no idea what the other things were that he wanted to say to these friends. He leaves us in suspense, not knowing what he wanted to say but wouldn't write. Such self-control - for these were things that he really wanted to write. Yet he did not write them. Why? Because he knew they would be spoiled if only communicated in writing. The fact that we have something we could say in an e-mail, or burning news we want to tell the world in a facebook post, is not sufficient grounds for believing that we ought to write. John suggests that there are many important things that are best not written (or blogged or posted or phoned).

Facebook is no substitute for face to face. Even skyping is not really an equivalent to face to face, because what John is after is not simply visual connection. The perfect, joy-completing communication to which John refers in this verse is literally "mouth-to-mouth" rather than face to face, as was the case in the way that God conversed with Moses (Numbers 12:8). The key element was not the visual image of a face, but the breath of life that flows from the spoken word communicated by real people in real life.

So many of our virtual relationships are virtually dead. How do we bring our relationships back to life? John is advocating mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. He won't kill off relational life by saying things in media that cannot carry that which needs to be said; rather he yearns for a visit. Then the communication can be life-giving, and the relational joy will be complete. 

Darwin believed in the Gospel

Charles Darwin believed in the power of the Gospel. His theory of evolution looked fine in the academic journals. But it didn't travel well. In fact it got quite sick when it set off to sea. The Gospel was a far more reliable travelling companion.

At times, we see glimpses of honesty as Darwin admits that his faith in evolution, while strong in the library, does not fare so well at sea. His ship, HMS Beagle pulled up to the shore in New Zealand in 1835. Having landed there, he acknowledged that the people he met had not evolved from an earlier life as wild cannibals. He was grateful that they had been transformed by the Gospel.

He arrived in New Zealand in time for Christmas, and spent the season at the home of a missionary. He records what he discovered:

I found there a very large party of children, collected together for Christmas-day, and all sitting round a table at tea. I never saw a nicer or more merry group: and to think, that this was in the centre of the land of cannibalism, murder and all atrocious crimes.

It was easy to theorize about evolution being the driving force bringing man to a higher plane. But Darwin could not actually live with that philosophy. He was fortunate that he had not landed at that spot 20 years earlier when the Gospel had not yet arrived on those shores. And he knew it. So rather than hoping to find welcoming products of an evolving species on his travels, he left his materialistic philosophy behind when he took to sea. In real life he lived by a different creed. As he put it,

Should he [a voyager] chance to be at the point of shipwreck on some unknown coast, he will most devoutly pray that the lesson of the missionary may have extended thus far.

John Sorensen comments on this irony of Darwin's inability to really live with the implications of his theoretical philosophy. He tells us that Darwin realized that if it were not for the Gospel, he "might have been on the menu rather than enjoying the birthday of Christ with a company of cheerful children." Read more... The survival of the fittest is not a creed that bodes well for the pale academic surrounded by muscular cannibals.

When the chips are down, evolutionists often resort to praying "Our Father which art in heaven." As Charles Spurgeon quipped, they can't live with the alternative liturgy which should begin, "Our father which art up a tree."

Earth Day in Vancouver

April 22 is celebrated as Earth Day around the world. Millions express concern for and devotion to our planet with religious fervour. It's a call to worship Mother Nature.

I remember the time when, on this secular holy day, the local TV station decided to broadcast the weather report from a beautiful location.

Queen Elizabeth Park, in Vancouver, is stunning, especially when the sky is blue and the sun is shining. The flowers are bright and the view across to sky-line of the city toward the snow-peaked mountains is gorgeous. Mother Nature in all her finery.

So it seemed fitting for the weather forecast for a suitably sunny day to be pronounced as a kind of benediction in this natural cathedral. And the meteorologist's comments were suitably doxological as he shared his good news. He took the opportunity to praise the wonders of nature whose glory was filling all that particular part of the earth.

But as he effused, I was struck by the hollowness of his comments. Being an intelligent man with a strong academic background in what we used to call "Geography" he must have known that not long ago this piece of planet earth would have been wilderness. Lots of shrubs and weeds, but few vibrant colours. And any human being setting foot on that patch of overgrown undergrowth would never have got a glimpse of the blue sky or the glorious snow-peaked mountains across the water. He would have been in the middle of a dense damp forest - more likely cursing the terrain that was so hard to hack a way through than blessing the beauty of an open vista.

All of which leads to the conclusion that Queen Elizabeth Park is not a testimony to the wonders of Mother Nature. It is a testimony to the industry and creativity of man working with the magnificent raw materials that Father God created for us to delight in and take dominion over to His glory. Without God there would have been nothing beautiful at all. Without man, the unique beauty of that particular spot would still have been an undeveloped and unattractive wooded area indistinguishable from countless acres of identical wilderness. It takes a landscaper to create a landscape. And the landscaper needs some land to work with. Praise be to God the land-creator and wow to man-in-His-image, the landscaper!

G.K.Chersterton was right when he said of the rolling hills of the English countryside,

It is not only nonsense but blasphemy to say that mans has spoiled the country. Man has created the country; it was his business in the image of God. (The Furrows, in 'Alarms and Discursions') 

He would have said the same of Vancouver.

Who decides what when?

We have been set free from sin. In Romans 6, Paul uses this phrase three times (vs 7,18,22). In the passage he describes our former state as "slavery". Sin was a tyrannical master and we labored night and day in his oppressive sweatshop with doors locked to prevent us from ever escaping to a life of freedom. But we have been set free! The conquering king raided the strongman's house and set the captives free.

As I was thinking about this phrase in Romans 6, a strange image flashed across my mind. A different kind of conquering king. King Kong, in the classic 1933 movie. And as I mused on the image, it was as if I heard the little lady in his powerful hand singing the old song, "I have decided to follow Jesus". I almost laughed out loud!

How absurd that this little lady would sing about deciding about anything. She's been picked up by a vastly greater power than her. She had little choice about being carried across the sky-line.

As we look at Paul's careful language, it is clear that he sees our salvation as being acted upon by a higher power. "Having been set free..." The verb is passive - it describes what was done to us and for us rather than what we did. The conquering King's irresistible grace reached down and rescued us from our slave-master and carried us to a new environment with entirely different working conditions. He has decided, not us. It is more accurate to think of him singing, "I have decided to rescue Brian," than it is for Brian to sing "I have decided to follow Jesus".

But does this mean we have no choice? Absolutely not! He made the first big choice. And now, having been rescued, we have to make choices every day. In Romans 6, Paul tells us that these released slaves have to choose whether to go to work each day for their old slave-master or offer themselves as slaves of righteousness. It seems absurd that we would ever go back to our former tyrant, but our habit patterns are so ingrained that sadly we often to. However, we don't have to! Sin no longer has dominion over us; we have been transported from the slums of sin into the park-lands of grace on the other side of town.

Paul's exhortation is to get up every day and present our members (all our faculties) to God as those "who have been brought from death to life" (v.13). We're still slaves, but everything has changed. We have a new master. And we have a new working environment - for we who once were slaves of sin (where we had no choice) have now become "obedient from the heart" (v.17). We choose to obey God every time we offer our members as instruments of righteousness, day-by-day, moment-by-moment.

 "I have decided to follow Jesus" is not the song to sing when you want to get out of the slavery of sin. Those doors are barred. When you work for sin, you don't have the option to quit and look for another job. You will get paid fairly; Paul tells us in v.23 that the wages of sin is death. But you can't resign and say "I don't want to work here anymore." You're a slave! .

However, the gospel proclaims that we can now get up every day singing, "I have decided to follow Jesus." Today. It's the song we sing having been set free - free now to make choices every day to live our life to the glory of the glorious rescuer who is mighty and strong to save. Our conquering king - whom to serve is perfect freedom.