I WAS THINKING 5

Anne Boleyn and all that.

The history of the Tudors has been treated like new news by Press and TV lately, the story of Henry viii and Anne Boleyn for instance. Henry, a 16th century Saddam Hussein monster sent his pert young wife for a French sword to slice through her slender neck, At least it brought her permanent, legendary and romantic popularity. More than that, it triggered off religious disturbances for centuries. Those disruptive upheavals concerned church order.

A book received great notice about 20-odd years ago suggesting all churches and property be sold, all ministers resign, and everything be unshipped so God could show us the right way. Hailed 'to make us think'. I thought that if God had failed to show people the right way for several centuries, were likely to do better now? Well, we learn by the past, but dismantle the whole church?

When Elizabeth 1 reigned rhw Bible was beginning to be read. It was expected tot provide answers all religious question. The 17th century was explosive with powerful new political moods intertwined with varied religious views. People seized upon any odd Bible text to confirm their particular perspective with dogmatic certainty. Sure that the Bible must tell us everything, 'nonconformists' and radicals found Bible proof they were right appeared in fighting mood - Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Quakers. An Act in 1667 tried to force everyone to be Church of England. That 400 year old history still repeats.

Church order has been and remains a major cause of division and puts the brake on Christian expansion. The Ecumenical Movement tackled it but 50 years of conferences have produced only paper bridges between Christian bodies.

I recall my own sufferings - ah! Newly ordained, I sat for eternities while speakers argued for completely opposite theories, namely central government as against local government. Listening, I felt that many passages and texts quoted were barely relevant and like the Irishman's jacket fitted only where they touched.

Then 20 years ago fresh dogmas upset Pentecostals and some whole congregations seceded from their parent bodies. We were challenged then with the cry "What is the Spirit saying to the churches?" Adopting an attitude of imperial spirituality various leaders seem to know, and admonished us to re-structure our churches their way.

Now long before that 1980's storm, some of us, Bible teachers, had met to examine the question of church structures. After many meetings over two years testing Scripture for competing dogmas and theories of church order our report was published. It had the answer to the later agitation bit alas our labours had been shelved.

The search for the true church pattern is like the search for the Holy Grail, or rather the Will-O'-the Wisp, somebody always at it. Hope never dies! Not long ago the Scripture about 'new wine skins' was dragged unwillingly into the debate to argue that the Holy Spirit would only be happy in a new kind of church (their kind!) Why 'new wine skins' were interpreted as churches I have never fathomed.

The most emphasised 'discovery' on church order today is Ephesians chapter four which states that Christ gave apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors. The conclusion had been drawn that these five (or four?) offices are how churches should structured. This is pure assumption read into the chapter. The church is not actually mentioned and nothing about "structuring", nor even that Christ gave these officers to the church. The Greek original needs to be better handled, The AV reads - " He gave some apostles, some prophets, etc " which is a bit shaky, and the NIV says Christ gave some to be apostles which the Greek definitely does not say.

The original uses the definite article before each gift "THE apostles, etc", The best rendering is perhaps " He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers" It is a general statement about what Christ has done, 'he gave' not 'he gives'. But these five (or four) gifts are not the only gifts, but only examples, according to verse 7 - "To every one of us is given grace according to the measure o the gift of Christ". Every one of us is a gift, often gifted.

Going back to our old committee's conclusions, The report was shelved, but has never been challenged, namely that we found no specific directive, blueprint. pattern, order or clear basis for church order in the New Testament whatever beyond the appointment of oversight. It was clear that Apostolic leadership arranged matters in whatever way they saw best in the circumstances.

God not give directives. He gives wisdom, not only in church order but in all earthly issues. God made us responsible free beings, in His own image, and promised that whatsoever we do will prosper. He leaves it to us exercise wisdom in our ever-changing world, do our best, run our churches, our affairs and lives as Psalmist 32:9 says "Be ye not as the horse or as the mule, which have no understanding, whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle". God doesn't treat us like trams and He the tram driver.

It isn't appointing apostle or prophet that is effective and there's no Bible warrant to do it. Out and out effort for God, with the Holy Spirit, faith, love and the Word are the open secrets. No new formulae overlooked for 2000 years exists. The Holy Spirit isn't waiting for Bible patterned organisations but Bible-patterned lives.

"UNWORTHY" EATING AND DRINKING

1 Corinthian 11: 27, 28. What lies behind this warning?

Paul talks about eating and even drunkenness at the Lord's Table. We hear it read nearly every week, but I who understands what it is all about? "When ye come together therefore in one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper (Greek dinner) for in eating everyone takes before other his own supper, one is hungry and another is drunken. What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Wherefore, when you come together to eat, tarry one for another. Therefore if any man hunger, let him eat at home, that you come not together unto condemnation."

The reference was thought to refer to a 'love feast' like the old Methodists had, Obviously it refers to customs and practices of that day, not ours which needed regulating. It was the gross behaviour at this meal that called forth Paul's warning about eating and drinking unworthily, "not discerning the body", i.e. that the communion bread and wine had no meaning for them, only food. They should "eat at home".

The Corinthian church had both Jews and Gentiles and Paul could talks familiarly about the Passover. But Corinth was Roman, re-built by Rome after destruction and strong elements of Roman culture and customs were practised in a rare cosmopolitan atmosphere. Outside the church the Roman world was pagan with practices that would shock and bewilder us.

Eating together was a Roman custom. There were two types of dining. For some occasions people came together bringing their food. A different public meal was open with food provided for whoever came, perhaps a rich man's or government's charity meal. Romans talked about bread and circuses The church formed its own area of social contact, and Roman type meals were part of church life. To eat and drink together was natural - to them, if not to us. However the Corinthian church was notoriously riddled with partisanship - the whole of 1 Corinthians is about disunity. So rival church members adopted the Roman private dinner custom. Some came but the food was already eaten. They were not invited. Paul said they should 'tarry' one for another, that is they should follow the open meal custom for all who came.

Paul's refers to Passover. The Lord's Table was instituted 'after supper', following the Passover meal. Eating at the Lord's table seemed to have been warranted by the Passover meal associated with the Lord's supper. Paul mentions 'the cup of blessing", the third cup which Jesus had taken 'after supper'.

Degrading behaviour, greed, even drunkenness at the Corinthians Communion service, brought Paul's warning about eating and drinking unworthily.

One hears this warning read to good Christian congregations today often with great solemnity, warning communicants to examine themselves. It produces introspective scrupulosity and anxiety. What good is that?

What is 'unworthy?' If I feel worthy then what has Christ's blood to do with me? Christ calls sinners, the unworthy. Many are worried in case they eat bread with some unknown sin in their lives. It is an oppression and I have known those who never took communion because such heavy stress had been laid upon the perfection needed for participation. If we are that fit, are we fit at all? The common failures of every day life were not in mind in this Sc Scripture, but gross hostility openly displayed by participants in the Passover-type meal at the Lord's Table.

Disciplined church members have been told to stay away from the Lord's Table for a few weeks. Instead the church should insist that erring members DON'T stay away. Where else but at the Table is there restoration, re-assurance, and cleansing?

Communion is a profound act of oneness - that is Paul's point. It is not a "help yourself' ordinance but for each to bless another like Melchizedek blessing Abraham and offering him bread and wine. It should be ministered. Communion is both a physical and spiritual act, the very heart of our heart reaching out in desire to God. Servers are not mere handers-out, one hand in pocket, but should convey their sense of holy privilege bringing bread and wine in Christ's name. Don't you think so?

ABOUT WOMEN

Queen Victoria called Women's Rights 'mad wicked folly'. Did Paul prefer men to women and do some pastors?

A man was given a book entitled "What Men Know About Women". The 200 pages were blank. Actually what men know about women often surprises them, usually pleasantly. John Knox raged against the 'Monstrous Regiment of Women' i.e. Queen Mary in England and Mary of Lorraine regent for Mary Queen of Scots, but the greatest people I have known were women, starting with my own mother, absolutely unselfish and totally self-sacrificial. She was not always reasonable but always right. A Christian magazine said 'When God made Adam, He looked at him and said "I think I can do better!". I've wondered myself whether God would have made Adam if He had made Eve first. Would he have said "It is not good for woman to live alone?" Eves seem born to cope. I disagree with Alan Lerner that women should be more like men - exemplified by Anglican women priests in male priest attire. The effect is bizarre,

One can't be a pastor and not be inveigled on to committees discussing women. I escaped one such committee but their weighty treatise fell with a thump through my letterbox containing countless thousands of words. Automatically I disagreed with every word. Mostly it concentrated on Paul's strictures, text by text, with endless sections, and paragraphs.

Paul's guidance dealt with special situations in the strange culture of his day. Now, 2000 years later and in a very different culture his guidance is construed as mandatory principles. Nobody seems to take into account how Paul actually treated Christian women himself. He certainly encouraged them, which should make his rules better understood.

God did not make Eve as Adam's servant. Both had dominion over all things. Only after they sinned did male dominance appear. The Bible, especially the Hebrew Old Testament is a picture of a very male society. But it does not confirm that is how it should be. It simply describes the world after the fall, a dominant male society. But it no more approves it than other consequences of the fall.

Jesus chose 12 men for apostles, and that is the only time he seemed to show preference, but He had wise reasons for it. He had both men and women disciples, a revolution in rabbinical times, He chose to reveal His identity directly only to women. After the resurrection he came first to women. They believed. The men did not and Christ rebuked them.

A lady on the phone asked if I would attend their seminars on how to get more men in church, (Sexual discrimination?) I wouldn't be attending, so she asked " Don't' you want to learn how to bring more men into your church?" I replied "No. I would be just as happy with more women. But why more men?" My question rather stumbled the lady. Her answer lacked incisiveness and failed convince me.

It happens that I have had a high or equal proportion of men in my churches, but there's no technique of formula, just the locality or the personality of the pastor.

It seems to me without contradiction that the church would not get far without women and their unique qualities of loyalty, natural inclination to serve, loving concern, and extraordinary spiritual sensitivity for the truth.

What can they do? There is no apostolic law against loving God and serving Him. God gives women gifts and abilities and means that they should be used. A woman, as much as a man, should do what God has fitted her to do, and not be told to hide her talent in the earth.

Dr. Johnson said some wise things and some silly thing "A woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well, but you are surprised to see it done at all".

So? Well, the greatest preaching I ever heard was by a woman, Mrs. Aimee Semple McPherson. Old men were jumping out of their seats with excitement, and hundreds turned to Christ, and everybody wanted to touch her. "Let women keep silence?" Women like her?

One woman worked as hard as me alongside me all my life in total loyalty until last year, often with her hands, never grumbled at the lack of money, many hardships. travel away from home, or anything else. She was my wife. That's where I gained my knowledge of the equal worth of women.

UN-GRAMMAR?

Just in passing, more than 46000 pairs of eyes have seen IWT since August last year, and only one pair (not mine), spotted the spelling error in 'Contemporary'. A keen friend had pointed out that 'maybe' in IWT No.1. should have been 'may be', but even he missed 'Contemporary".

Anyway, 'English as she is spoke' - and spelled, suffers deliberate deformations. 'Going to' has gone and 'gonna' has arrived, got to is now 'gorra'. In TV dramas I have no idea about what actors sometimes mean - too street slick. Today a reader sent me a column from a northern newspaper with 'English' examples, "gotta", 'thingy' 'blokes' and "soz, but we ain't gonna change".. The columnist justifies slang claiming 'ours is a living language'. But if slang strangles it completely English will be a dead language and will the next-generation-but-one understand English Bibles? Cool innit? I wrote previously about the current fashion of ugliness and the way we talk is also infected. Still, even I am not ready to revert to Jane Austin style.

Missing possessive apostrophes are annoying. Despite complaints even public documents make this gaffe, e.g., 'Peoples interest", or 'Governments plan'. This same un-grammar has spread to prayer with "In Jesus Name", (no apostrophe). We used to say "In Jesus' Name" or "In Jesu's Name" but what does "In Jesus name" mean? 'Jesus' becomes an adjective describing some kind of name, Do we say "In Fred name" or "In Janet name" We say (pronounce) "In James' name", not "In James name". So why "In Jesus name?" . Anyway, just thinking!

CHAPTER AND VERSE?

It may shock some, but chapter and verse divisions in Scripture were not inspired by God. Their introduction was a 'tour de force'- verses by Robert Estienne (born 1503) and the 1189 chapter divisions by 13th century Stephen Langton

If you like figures, an American Pentecostal counted 7847 promises of God in the Bible, mostly Old Testament, over 1000 in Isaiah. The New Testament has about 1000 as it is mainly fulfilment. "All the (7847) promises of God are Yea and Amen in Christ Jesus." Paul meant Old Testament promises, The New Testament promises were not then written.

A Hebrew and Greek scroll or codex (book) had no chapters or verses, and little in the way of punctuation or even gaps between words. We owe Robert Estienne and Stephen Langton real thanks. We rely upon their work when we begin at verse one of a chapter. However, "even Homer nods". And some divisions interrupt the intended flow of thought. I read across chapter divisions. Here are two examples.

John 2:23- 3:1. Here's the text. "Many people saw the miraculous signs he wad doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man's testimony about man for he knew what was in man. Now there was a man named Nicodemus, a member of the ruling council. He cam to Jesus by night."

Nicodemus was different. He had been impressed by Christ's miracles and saw beyond the wonder of them. He said "No man could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God was not with him. " His insight singled Nicodemus out from the crowd. John 2:24 tells us that Jesus did not believe in them who believed in his name -actual Greek. They saw him as just a wonder worker, a magician. The multitudes whom Jesus fed were just as dull in perception, and understood nothing, only that He produced bread. What it signified never entered their heads, or who He was.

The disciples also could be obtuse. Jesus stilled the storm. They were awed - terrified in fact, but only remarked "What manner of man is this?" - hardly penetrating insight.

In Like's Gospel the feeding of the five thousand is set in a textual framework about Christ's identity, who he was. This miracle should have made it obvious, but the disciples missed it. Jesus expressed surprise that they had not caught the truth behind it. The performance and the scale of it bore the hallmarks of God the Provider, who "satisfied the desire of every living thing."

Preconceptions and prejudice are scales on our eyes. Miracles don't remove them. Oddly, Christ's enemies expected Him to work miracles, which is more than some of His friends expect today, but they remained His enemies. Jesus went into a synagogue where was a man with a withered arm. The synagogue's strictly pious but hard unbelieving leaders watched to see if Christ would heal him - on the Sabbath. Of course, He did. (Mark 3:1-6) They were furious. The miracle brought no light to dawn on their minds, but it had found an un-curtained window in the heart of Nicodemus. He said, 'No man could do these miracles except God be with him".

I have seen God's healing wonders for 50 years, but I don't rely upon healing miracles to bring in converts. Only the Gospel can do that. Signs and wonders simply "confirm the Word", and demonstrate something more than just power. They bring home the truth of truth, the Gospel. Healing might be as attractive today to the crowds as bread was to those following Jesu. But God has chosen to save people by the preaching of the Word, - preached not in word only but in power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel 'comes with' the Spirit, if we have that sort of faith.

For another example of reading across chapter divisions. John 13, 14. Chapter 14 is deservedly extremely popular. Read from the opening verse it is a powerful and almost perfect beginning. Yet Jesus did not begin speaking at that point, apropos of nothing. Verse 1 continues what He was saying in the lst verse of chapter 13. "Simon Peter asked him 'Lord where are you going?' Jesus replied 'Where I am going you cannot follow now, but you will follow later.' Peter asked 'Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!' Then Jesus answered 'Will you really lay down your life for m? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows you will disown me three times. Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust if God, trust also in me. I am going to prepare a place for you. I will come back and take you to be with me"

Peter, anxious to follow and be with Jesus, was told by Him that he would crash down in horrible defeat and humiliation. Jesus knew they would all flee and forsake Him within hours and be gripped by desperate failure. He graciously pre-empted their distress saying "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God. Trust in me"

Perhaps some feeling of shame always fluttered like dirty rags around the edges of Peter's memories. But Jesus understood! Against those unforgettable memories He left these assuring words, "Do not let your hearts be troubled'. The disciples were troubled, stunned by Christ's words to Peter, but Jesus lit a lamp of hope and love that burned for years through the dark nights of self-reproach and regret, Peter wept bitterly, but his tears did not extinguish that lamp.

For me, for us all, who have bitter consciousness of failure the words of Jesus are for us also. They were addressed to prospective failures, not prospective martyrs.

These two examples of cross-division readings exemplify the miracle of Bible unity.

I have to read critical and liberal comment, The prevailing theories see Scripture as edited bits of this and that. Each Gospel writer is taken as expressing his own personal outlook. This critical method leaves out the essential factor of Divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit. It is flawed treatment of the Scriptures.

The Bible is not just a potpourri of various people's experiences and reactions, Received as the Word of God every word is bound in the bundle of life in never-ending wonder. Faith takes the Word and it becomes an explosive force. People study and ponder but we are asked only to read. Read right on, across chapters and books. It is the only Word of life.