The Authority of the Sanctuary - Responses

Well, some of you out there were lightning quick responding.  Piers asked "Can you give more guidance on how we decide who to bar from access to grace in these New Testament days?"  I'm sure over the years he's as astute as most, and likewise still learning from mistakes. 

Anglicans and others who hold that their priesthood has representative significance have the toughest time.  By this, like their second Adam, their clergy must be ordained and male, wholly to fulfil the completeness of humanity.   The Reformation in large measure took clergy from the altar and the confessional into the pulpit and the home.  Pastors replaced priests.  We, from its radical segment, have an even easier time.  We just need leaders of biblical (New Testament) qualification. 

 John, whom I had name-checked, was more challenging: "And in Matthew 21 we see Jesus's temple action overturns tables, 'allows in' the blind and lame who would otherwise have been excluded, heals them.  Lesson is, almost all teaching from the OT is wrong!"  The parallel example I use is Peter and John healing the lame man sitting excluded (Acts 3), who then exuberantly joins them in the Temple, having had "in the Name of Jesus" his covenant inheritance restored.

But (pace John) that wasn't quite my point.  A good exegesis of Leviticus will draw out that the powerful message of the tabernacle was:
(a) it was a place of breathtaking beauty, with no place for disfigurement or defilement.  References to the garments being for glory (Exodus 28), the oil and incense being reserved for sacred use (Exodus 30), and craftsmen being supernaturally gifted (Exodus 31) all point to matchless splendour in holiness;
(b) it was a place of overwhelming life with no place for decay or death.  It's home to the Yahweh of creation, providence, conquest, healing.  Hence the prohibition on contact with corpses, many of the "cleanliness" regulations, and the death sentence on any who trifled with the whole set-up of the system.

These - and I'm not extending to forgiveness, etc. - are glimpses into the awesome nature of God.  Here's where I agree with John.  Human-centred interpretations pitched at how prescriptive, or how petty and prejudiced Yaweh must be to impose exclusions, completely miss the point.  Why, we're daily surrounded by consumer offerings that boast, "It's the ones we throw away that make our product so special"; and buyers love it.

We of low church heritage miss the point.  The transcendent God celebrated in towering Norman and superb Gothic architecture, like Chartres and early English cathedrals, has been replaced by "Jesus, my mate", "experienced" in comfort and familiarity.

I met an Australian who'd travelled widely before finding faith.  He'd survived battering storms in the Indian ocean, and had climbed high in the Himalaya.  He pitied our "town planning" scale of perspective.  These experiences commanded that the God he'd come to admire and eventually bow to, and to trust boldly, was unimaginable to average Brits.  God, open our souls!

On this scale of reference, we need to approach God thoughtfully, circumspectly, and seek to lead others there.  Our events together and in public may be informal and relaxed, but please, not banal and indiscriminate.

I'm suspicious of fully-encultured theology.  Here I must observe that those who daily sit nearer the modern media are most in danger of influence from its voices, liberalism and all.  Yes, you can include Steve Chalke.  The last place our lost society will find salvation is in unboundaried humanistic tolerance.  We need the One Who is Other - an Other Source - to step in and tell us the way; be the Way. 

Authority of the sanctuary is part of that way.  I don't mistake it for unthinking prejudice, comforting religious "certainties", fears of personal contamination, cut-price exegesis.  The fearful destiny of the church is to walk in step with the Holy Spirit.  However we seek, listen and discern that to be.  There's no turning back.  Consumer-bought substitutes, blind denominational tradition and the biases of Western hermeneutic all fail us in this inconvenient pilgrimage.  God, give us big ears and brave hearts. 

Thanks to Mike Shaw for the image.

The Authority of the Sanctuary

Authority ministry is the most difficult to exercise.  Foolish people get envious, perhaps craving scope for significant decisions or prominence or legitimised influence.  They couldn't be more wrong. 

John tells me he's never heard anyone preach from Leviticus 21:20 (quoted below).  Well I've taught on it.  It's the authority of the sanctuary; gatekeeping who gets to get access to God, to grace, and who gets left out.  It sets off shakes of dread in me.  Somebody has to do it in the church, just as in the old covenant tabernacle.  The implications are horrendous.

LEVITICUS 21:16 The LORD said to Moses, 17 "Say to Aaron: `For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God.  18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.  21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire.  He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.  22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy. ' "

The passage is preceded with rules on contact with dead bodies and prohibitions on eligible marriage partners.  It's followed by instructions on touching unclean insects, semen and animal corpses.  There's more in chapter 22.

Why do I mention it?  Because Steve Chalke has gone public with the fact that he's blessed a civil partnership couple in his church.  Was he right to do this?  Cross this line, as some have expressed it? 

I've had to decide who should be asked to leave our public events.  Maybe they were behaving disruptively, or around to ferment support for some grievance.  I've had to judge if children unaccompanied by adults should come into our marquee, and on what terms.  I've had to ban church members and others, for discipline, from certain gatherings.  I've had to recommend if a couple would be better arranging a civic wedding that we could afterwards bless, rather than promoting the event in our own premises.  (In fact, in England, we don't have civic weddings and church weddings - we just have weddings; the legal "lines" are identical.)  I've sent people packing from our community house.

Thus I've gate-kept the sanctuary.  I've distinguished who should get access to grace - and God, insofar as He's been present - and whom prohibited.  There's no avoiding it.

In fact, in Protestant tradition, all are priests, with some role to bring people to God or connect them with grace. 

Viv tried to pick up the thread of the Steve Chalke debate.  He was vexed.  He exploded, "I want nothing to do with it!  I hate these church politics.  Put someone in front of me and I'll love them.  But all this wrangling - I've no patience with it."

I wouldn't be alone in wishing I could step back, too.  Paul Brand likens the body of Christ to our own bodies.  There are some hard, bony bits (our skeletal framework).  There are some soft flexible tissues (most evident on the surface).  We have both.  Truth and grace, if you like.  Else our anatomy dissolves to a formless squishy blob: all accommodation and no inner firmness.   And the church...

Let's draw breath before we judge.  Our faith is ever the ineffable truth of God in the hands of broken imperfect men.  Dallas Willard expresses it well:  "Human beings stand in their world condemned to act, and to act on the basis of whatever ideas, images, beliefs, impulses, desires and emotions they may have in the moment of action.  We have no choice in that."  Especially leaders.


(Bible quotation from the New International Version)

Celibacy in the Headlines

So, the spotlight's on celibacy.  Is it a fair deal for Christian gays in committed relationships with ambitions to be a C of E bishop?   We've been practising celibacy for over 30 years, and have found it a fruitful, and even "better", lifestyle choice than marriage (or indecisiveness).  Some people have just got to abandon their anachronistic objections stemming from 1521, stop fighting yesterday's battles, and realise that Protestants have been missing a trick.

We've learnt plenty along the way.  When we teach on this to our Multiply delegates it sends up sparks.  Since often their churches have a problem with Aids widows, there's a glaring contradiction here.   When, in both Africa and India, I've explained celibacy practise, it opens a new possibility for saints who are stuck in a cultural impasse.  I remember it was clearly the case for two lady church workers in Kenya, a single younger man in Rwanda who had no known immediate family, and an Indian evangelist committed to working in unreached villages.

I begin by reviewing prophetic and sacrificial signs known to serious believers.
Marriage: revealing Christ and the church;
Burial (particularly as opposed to cremation) : anticipating bodily resurrection;
Radical sharing: celebrating God's free gift of Eden, the Acts 2 enactment of Jubilee, and looking onwards to the New Earth;
Celibacy: confirming new creation and in the pattern of our eternal heavenly - not natural - relationships.

Then we have three strands of biblical precedents.

The Old Testament: Nazirites, and Isaiah’s Eunuchs

NUMBERS 6:2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite,

ISAIAH 56:3  And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree."  4 For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant -- 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.

The New Testament: Jesus’s Teaching
Marriage, Divorce and Celibacy (Matthew 19:1-13)
No Marriage in the Eternal Kingdom (Luke 20:34-38)
Jesus’ Life, and Followers (Revelation14:4)

MATTHEW 19:10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."  11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

LUKE 20:34  Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.  35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.  They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.

The New Testament: Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 7

• marriage is a concession v6
• he wishes all were like him v7
• time is short and stressful v29
• marriage gets in the way v26
• the world is passing away v31
• living in undivided devotion to the Lord v39

1 CORINTHIANS 7:32  I would like you to be free from concern.  An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord.  33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world -- how he can please his wife-- 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit.

1 CORINTHIANS 7:37  But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin -- this man also does the right thing.  38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

We can add the The testimony of the Church

• Francis of Assisi
• Thomas a Kempis
• Mary Slessor (W. Africa)
• David Brainerd (America);
• Amy Carmichael (India)
• Mother Theresa (India)

John Stott, remained unmarried.  He writes that this was through self-control, not gift (charisma).  I understood that this was to leave the possibility open to all, and to prevent pastoral confusion among any for whom it subsequently "didn't work".  His point, on which I agree, is that celibacy creates greater availability/freedom.  By this interpretation, it's not that it's "holier" (though there are hints of that in 1 Corinthians 7, together with Paul's clear use of the word gift).

On to our practise (expanded in "Seven Silver Rings", available from Jesus Fellowship resources).

It often starts with a period of committed singleness - say a year, or three, in which there's freedom to be involved in service with a clear understanding that you're not "available".  Some like to wear a white wrist band.

The stage at which more serious consideration is being given we call probationary celibacy.  Here we include a public acknowledgement that prayer and support is valued as the single person seeks God's will.  This requires good pastoral care, and is confined to those over 21 years age.  It may extend for a year to three or more depending on maturity.  There's no pressure.

I need to explain wearing a silver ring, which is optional.  Many like because it's generally worn on the third finger like an engagement or wedding ring.

We also require that single leaders being recognised as pastors should be clear in their state, i.e. faithfully married or committed celibates.

After the probationary stage, we adopt a full celibacy covenant vow, as this has been asked for by most.  Alternatively some may decline to proceed, and either be content to remain "just single" or consider marriage.  Either way, much has been added to the Kingdom by their love for all and availability to serve.

After a full commitment, the need for psycho-sexual maturing and growth in responsibility remains.  Celibacy is a positive choice for a lifestyle of sacrifice.  It's not an opt-out for those with hang-ups, or hidy-hole for those having experienced relationship breakdowns or confusion in earlier years.  Advice, counselling and friendship is available from a steering group of maturer saints with much experience and lives that most would want to imitate.

The celibate choice is available to the never-married, divorcees and widows alike.  Similarly, although most celibates live in a community house family setting, folks in their own places can make the choice.

Some celibates break their vow.  This is sad, and needs careful pastoral care whilst recognising some loss of prophetic clarity.  to I also need to add that while we actively encourage singleness and celibacy we're not prohibiting marriage (Titus 4:3).

So, it's not imposed, it's not monastic, it's not repressive.  In today's sexually over-obsessed Western culture it's a stinging counterblast.  But its heart is devotion to Jesus and His people.  Isn't that the clergy's calling anyway?

All Bible quotations are from the New International Version

A Low Score

Jack read some of my recent blogs. He stung me: "You should aim at being comprehensible, not comprehensive".

I'm one year on from when I started posting.  My immediate justification was that one reason I took up doing this is to contribute some solid teaching thoughts into a medium overflowing with opinions.  My I say "received" teaching?  Some of your comments express appreciation for this.  I think I succeed in part.  It's not my unvarying content, but still, I don't dismiss Jack's criticism.

It's not often that I give space to my artistic bent.  I think that's what's at stake.  An artist selects a subject, or focal point, that guides the eye, intending disclosure, illumination or revelation beyond the obvious.  This encapsulates the message.   Much may be omitted that doesn't serve.  Since I've only been allowing myself one shot (occasionally two) on themes in teaching, I've erred on, "cover the whole thing, then nothing's missed out".

By contrast, if you checked though my laptop Pictures folders, you'd find some thoughtfully composed shots that follow a more artistic principle.  It's one reason I enjoy going to the Botanical Gardens.  There, I snap a nice flower - not the whole bush.  So, why don't I do it more (apart from the fact that the camera on my phone is useless for landscapes)?   And on these written compositions.

When I was about eight years old, and we had our first car, petrol filler caps broke into my consciousness.  I began to notice the position and type on every parked and passing vehicle.  Chrome ones; chrome ones with little chains, painted ones; fit-over-the-neck ones; and fit-inside ones.  Every car I drew, whatever else lacked in the draftsmanship, included a petrol filler cap.

Of course, the time came when I superseded this childish level of observation for scale, perspective, proportion, accuracy and uniformity of detail.  We smile forgivingly at the children's pictures of mummy, with a beachball head, dinnerplate eyes and myriad fingers.  An immature perceptual representation of the subject, not its objective image as we adults know.

Artists remain childish.  That repels me.

When the latest VW Golf GTI was announced, a magazine motoring correspondent compared it with the several (five, I think), antecedent models since introduction.  He let slip that the iconic focus of the first version was the filler cap and surround.  It was a tastefully engineered steel ring with eight countersunk screws.  It was lockable, set provocatively just above the waistline, hinting straight from motor racing.  When VW brought out the mark 2, they feared sales would crash.  It lacked this object of desire.  An enormous marketing risk.

Was the filler cap childish frippery, or artistic (or engineering) genius?

So 2013 has to see my postings perk up.  In any case, it sits well with the existentialist ruminations of recent months: whether I would be reassuringly stable, predictable, proper and responsible; or flawed, annoying, idiosyncratic, authentic and brilliant.