About ten days ago, Matt Chandler preached the following sermon at Jubilee Church in London.  In it he preaches the gospel, focusing in on the parable of the prodigal son from Luke’s gospel.  Many readers will remember seeing Matt’s “Jesus wants the battered rose” illustration. If you want to see that illustration in context this is a good video.  It is vital that Christian’s expose themselves to clear gospel teaching often. This talk will make fresh for you the wonderful good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and their glorious implications for us today. I encourage you strongly to watch this, and watch it often, and allow this man of God to minister good to your soul. Grace will conquer legalism every time, but only if we allow ourselves to be shaped by anointed preaching such as this. Are we like the older brother? Do we really want our churches to grow? Or would we rather they stayed a small cozy family caring for our needs? What would a missional church mean for you and me?

The Gospel from Jubilee Church on Vimeo.

This is the third part in my short series on multiculturalism. The first two in the series can be found here:

1. Multiculturalism—You Are What You Eat?

2. Does Multiculturalism Mean I Have To Eat Blood?

When you mix with a number of different nationalities, you begin to realize that cultural differences are more complicated than you appreciated. They can also extend to quite surprising areas of life. One such area is that of whether or not it’s a good idea to circumcise baby boys.

In the UK this practice is definitely on the decline. Articles in the Guardian and Times have sought to further discourage it, although, even by 1975, fewer than 6 per cent of boys born in the UK were circumcised, whereas in the USA this figure was more like 60 per cent, even today. Christianity Today has an article about the decision-making process on whether to chop or not that stays neutral and lists additional links that provide helpful information.

I was raised within a tradition that was not in any way convinced by the arguments of some that circumcision is good for “hygienic reasons.” It was not all that uncommon during sermons to hear throw away comments about how glad we men were that circumcision was no longer required under the New Covenant. In fact, some would have gone further still and argued that circumcision was not permissible for Christians at all. They would have pointed to verses like the following to state that no Christian should allow themselves or their sons to be circumcised.

“Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Philippians 3:2-3, emphasis mine).

“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace . . .

You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! (Galatians 5:7-12).

At first glance these verses would indeed seem pretty conclusive. A bit like the eating blood question, I would, in many ways, love to find biblical support to buttress my prejudices. But not so fast! There are, however, two cardinal rules of biblical interpretation that I must not break. The first is to always consider the context of the passage. The second is to consider the difference between the situation that the words are spoken into and our own situation today, and the implications of this, if any, for our understanding of what the Bible means for us.

So, to the context. Those three dots should be a clue. Let’s have a look at what I deliberately excised from the second passage: “For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Paul here seems to be stating that circumcision itself is not the issue. It would seem that, to Paul, being intact or otherwise is not what’s at stake here. In fact, in Acts we learn that Paul actually circumcised one of his helpers—Timothy (Acts 16:3), and yet on another occasion he strongly resisted doing so for another of his helpers—Titus Galatians 2:3. Can you imagine the locker-room conversations between those two?!

Therefore, it does seem to Paul that whether to agree to a circumcision or not is a circumstantial decision that would perhaps hinge around what meaning is going to be given to it. Modern Christians who do circumcise their children are doing so, not for religious grounds, but for what they believe to be health benefits, or just because, unlike me, they have grown up in an environment where the tradition is that you are expected to do it.

I have yet to meet a modern Christian who believes that to carry out an operation on their son will make him more acceptable to God and in any way contribute to justification. Therefore, it would seem wrong to apply these strong warnings against circumcision to the many thousands who do this as a cultural practice. I should be gracious and accepting of such people, and ensure that if the conversation ever comes up, I don’t appear incredulous that people still carry out this ancient practice. But, equally, I hope that those who do this will not consider those of us on the other side of the fence to be somehow “unclean.”

Of course, this can all seem very irrelevant, and by now some of you may be wondering why I have even taken the time to bring this up. I do so because, if we are building churches together, and even marrying across clear cultural divides, these issues can cause division if we are not careful. The truth is, being circumcised or not can certainly be very important in forging your sense of belonging to a group—your “identity.” Even without a conscious rejection of others who are different, there can easily be a feeling of dislocation and disconnection. For example, a careless joke made by someone from “the other side” about remaining intact (or not!) might go flat and leave people feeling unwelcome.

When two people from groups with different perspectives on this issue marry, they may find that it is best to have the conversation about which way their new family decides to go on this issue before any sons are born.

Should Christians circumcise their sons? If you’re looking for a legalistic answer, I’m not at all sorry that I have to disappoint. Like so many of these issues, while there are some biblical guidelines, the answer is—at least on this occasion—it all depends on why you want to do it.

Regular readers of my blog will remember that, together with my pastor, Tope Koleoso, we had the joy of being able to chat with Mark Driscoll when we went to Edinburgh to hear him preach live. We were deeply impressed with his graciousness and kindness to us. In this, he reminded me of a man who is one of my other living Christian heroes—Terry Virgo.

I know that many people were disappointed not to be able to make it to Scotland to hear Mark. So I am delighted to relay an announcement from Terry Virgo’s blog today. Mark Driscoll has agreed to speak next July at the Newfrontiers Leaders Conference in Brighton, UK. Here is how Terry begins his post:

“The last time I checked, the Pope was still a Catholic, the death rate was still hovering at around 100%, and the chances of getting Mark Driscoll to speak at a conference in the UK in 2008 were averaging at zero.

It is therefore with great delight that I can announce that we have, with the aid of certain friends (for an inspired guess see Adrian Warnock’s blog), arranged for him to be our main visiting speaker at Together on a Mission in Brighton next year, 8-11 July 2008.

In recent months I have found myself listening to downloads of Mark Driscoll’s preaching, probably more than anybody else’s. I find him completely arresting, relevant, Biblical, funny, aggressive, and packing a real punch. I believe he will do us a lot of good.

I love his value system and I am impressed by what has been accomplished by God through his ministry based in Seattle, where a church of several thousand has been built in a few years, starting from almost nothing and largely not through church swapping, but conversion.

He is theologically reformed, Biblically orthodox, and culturally relevant, and particularly addresses the post-modern world with remarkable insight. I have just read his chapter in the Crossway publication, The Supremacy of Christ in a Post-Modern World. I found myself underlining sentence after sentence, and simply wrote ‘Wow!’ in the margin at the conclusion of the chapter. I am deeply grateful to God that he will be with us.” Read more . . .

This is a fantastic piece of news. Terry and Mark are both pastors of pastors. Church planting is a major need of our world today. Leaders themselves need to be trained.

As an example of Terry’s gifting in operation, he has recently finished a series of posts on the vital role of the pastor in the life of a church. He re-examines the biblical teaching. I will finish this post by giving you a taste of each post in the series, but do go and read them all; they are worthy of careful study.

Church Leaders

As a movement, Newfrontiers has tended to emphasise the role of apostles and prophets. The church was originally built on the foundation of apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20) so they gave the people of God their fundamental identity. I have argued that we were not built on a pastoral foundation.

My argument has often been expressed by noting that pastors are called to care for and feed the flock and meet the flock’s needs. An over-emphasis, therefore, on the pastoral role can result in pre-occupation with needs. We could become need-centred instead of apostolic and prophetic, thereby missing God’s intention and forgetting the bigger picture, building churches that gradually become foreign to the atmosphere of the New Testament.

I have been alarmed at the possible danger of a church becoming introverted, developing a culture where personal preference dominates and shepherds major on discerning and serving people’s so-called ‘felt needs’. However, in taking this stance, we may have failed to bring adequate positive Biblical teaching about the vital role of pastors and teachers. They are, of course, the most visible ministers in the local church. They have the most ‘hands on’ role among the flock. Read more . . .

Shepherds of the Flock

Jesus didn’t say, ‘I am the good apostle,’ or ‘the good prophet,’ or even ‘the good evangelist,’ but happily claimed to be the Good Shepherd. . .

Although the Lord was their ultimate shepherd, it is clear that God actually enlisted men to fulfil the shepherding role on His behalf. . .

As the apostles go, their intuitive strategy in obeying the command was to plant churches, establish flocks and appoint shepherds to care for them. Read more . . .

Other Sheep I Must Bring

When Billy Graham came to the UK in the 1950′s and ‘60s, the call to return to God would have been generally comprehended by that generation. Today we live in a different era and though people can be born again through encountering the simplest message, we must not assume that initial conversion will result in inevitable Christian maturity, or even basic understanding of Christian living.

Deconstructing people’s world view
The role of the modern shepherd includes a call to deconstruct people’s previous world view. Nothing can be taken for granted. Lives need to be re-formed. Coming from a fragmented and aimless society devoid of any trace of Christian values, people need to be re-socialised and taught how to relate in godly ways.

Raised on self-indulgence, consumerism and rampant individualism, the new convert won’t automatically be transformed into a mature Christian who knows how to conduct himself in the household of God (1 Timothy 3:15).

God has promised to give His people shepherds after His own heart who will feed them with knowledge and understanding (Jeremiah 3:15). This feeding requires a radical approach. We are not called to build on a false foundation with teachings that imply merely personal fulfilment or the grasping of the individual’s full potential, or how to love oneself. The shelves of many a Christian bookshop are filled with titles which appeal to personal fulfilment as the goal of the Christian life. Coming from a culture where demanding your personal rights seems to be the bottom line, new Christians hardly need that diet. Read more . . .

Spirit-inspired Preaching

. . . Holy Spirit-inspired preaching brings about an encounter with God that demands a verdict and produces a changed life based on revelation, faith and love, not cold obedience to external rules.

God’s flock will intuitively hear His voice and respond as truth is fed to them by called and anointed pastor/teachers. Gradually a culture of God-centredness will emerge characterised by worship, faith, grace, mercy, respect, service and the awareness of being an alien people whose fundamental citizenship lies elsewhere (Philippians 3:20) . . .

The shepherd’s ability to feed and be a channel of God’s grace will result in the gathering of a flock. The sheep gather to the gifted anointing of shepherding and thus a flock forms.

The responsibility of the shepherds is not simply to expound truth but to develop relationships of love and trust, and in some cases to ‘parent’ a flock often made up of those who have never been parented before. Read more . . .

As we continue looking at John Piper’s book we have now reached page 200 and following. I want to highlight Piper’s attitude to the law. What, according to Piper, is the purpose of the law?

“The reason the law is not against the promise is precisely that it was designed not to give life but to hold under sin and lead to Christ who gives life. Paul says that if the law had given life, then it would have been against the promise. It would have short-circuited the purpose of the promise to make Christ the basis of life and righteousness. . . .

[Piper then addresses Galatians 5:6, arguing that this verse] tells what kind of faith avails justification. Therefore, love as an expression of faith is not the instrument of justification—it does not unite us to Christ who is our perfection. Only faith does. But this faith is the kind of faith that inevitably gives rise to love.”

[He continues stating that 1 Timothy 1 shows us that] to use the law lawfully (v. 8) is to understand that it is designed to lead people to the gospel of Christ and to indict what is not in accord with the gospel. In this way, the lawful use of the law leads to the transformation of the heart through “sincere faith” (v. 5) and thus leads to love, which is in turn the aim of Paul’s preaching (v. 5) and the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:8). The key defining criterion of the life-change that Paul is pursuing is whether it is “in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God” (v. 11). Using the law lawfully means using it to convict people of living out of accordance with the gospel. . . .

We bear fruit for God (love) by being joined through faith to Jesus, not through the law. That is what the law was ultimately designed to show.”