Subtitled: Deep Healing Needed

HEAL NOT LIGHTLY, as the title suggests, is a book about healing – not light healing that might be applied with antiseptic cream, or a sticky-plaster or band-aid, but a deep one, that might require the skill of a surgeon. More often than not, problems between ethnic groups fit into the latter category. This book takes a look under the surface of what have been called “The Troubles” of Northern Ireland, and Harry Smith finds a few areas requiring the deeper sort of healing.

One of these is the Ulster Covenant, which was the response of the Protestants of Northern Ireland in 1912 to the proposed Home Rule Bill that had been submitted to the British Parliament, and looked like was going to become law. This would have placed all of Ireland, North and South, under an autonomous parliament in Dublin.

This was good news to the Irish Catholic community, whose experience of British rule had been quite turbulent and often traumatic. However, the Protestants community in Ireland didn't share the same historical perspective. There were other issues.

Among the biggest was that such a parliament would have a Catholic majority. The Protestant community who had migrated to Ireland in large numbers during the times of Queen Elizabeth I, James I, and William of Orange to serve as their political pawns, would suddenly find themselves in the minority. It was rightly believed that the Dublin government would be heavily influenced by the Catholic Church. A common slogan was, “Home rule is Rome rule”. If that seems far-fetched, remember that religious freedom was not taken for granted in Europe then as it is now. Also, those were the days before the Vatican II council, which liberalised the Catholic Church's position towards non-Catholics (however, even now, there are many Protestants who regard these changes as strictly cosmetic).

So, many Protestants feared the worst. The Protestants of Northern Ireland, primarily under the leadership of the Presbyterian, Church of Ireland and the Methodist churches, banded together and signed a document called the Ulster Covenant. In this, they swore not to submit to Home Rule, and in the event that it was forced on them, to resist, taking up arms if necessary. Some prominent Ulster Protestants signed it with their blood. This covenant has been the basis of Northern Irish identity ever since.

The first chapter of the book contains numerous statements in the press by various church leaders, politicians, editors and others regarding the danger that was eminent, and the necessity of every Protestant who values his history and his freedom as a British subject. Just reading them gives one a sense of the atmosphere that prevailed. In all, around 250,000 men signed the covenant – with a similar number of women signing a supporting document.

Harry Smith also goes into some more background, relating how former Moderators of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland utilised the Scottish National Covenant of 1638 to unite people politically and spiritually against the Home Rule Bill.

The Scottish National Covenant was a vow of solidarity, which established Scotland as a Christian nation under God with their Presbyterian values, in their resistance to attempts at control by the Church of England. In effect, it was a reminder to God whose side He was on. It was even said that in the same way that God had once regarded the Israelites as His chosen people, whom He had now rejected under the New Covenant, He now regarded the Scottish nation. In other words, Supersessionism, or Replacement Theology was a cornerstone of Covenant terminology.

Then, we read details of how, during the times of James I and William of Orange, Scottish Protestants were offered land in Ireland from which Irish Catholics had been forcibly removed. They regarded this as their divine mandate, and that later became the basis of the Ulster Covenant.

So, whose side was God on? Reading all the press statements in the first chapter compels one to consider that a covenant may have seemed like a good idea at the time. In fact, one would have been considered a traitor – an enemy of God – for opposing it. But was it really a good idea? The song by Bob Dylan, “With God on Our Side” comes to mind.

Harry Smith believes that the Ulster Covenant is now one of the biggest hindrance to peace in Northern Ireland.

But, you ask, didn't the Good Friday Agreement bring peace? There still exist huge fences crossing whole sections of Belfast, which are referred to as the “peace wall”. They are, in fact, proof that there isn't peace, otherwise, why would we need walls to separate us? That actually fits with the same passage in Jeremiah 8:11 from which Harry Smith took the title: "They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace."

God showed Harry Smith that it is like a log-jam that holds back the flow of His Spirit - like the river mentioned in Ezekiel chapter 47, which brought healing to the land. Repentance at Church government and personal levels are essential for the removal of this log-jam so as to release the river of God.

To achieve peace in Northern Ireland, Protestants in Northern Ireland must renounce the Ulster Covenant, and the Nationalist community must renounce the Sinn Fein Covenant (that was signed a few years later); let go of our political agendas, and trust God to direct the future according to His plan.

There are also chapters on intercessory prayer, a helpful exposition on the basis for believers' authority, and many practical guidelines on how to seek God's plan for a city or a nation, with particular emphasis on Ireland. Even if it were just for those aspects, it's a worthwhile read.

If you're interested in ethnic reconciliation and want to understand more clearly, what you're up against, definitely, get this book.

RobbyMac on Apologies

RobbyMac has put out a creative piece entitled Apology at OK Corral. He deals with the fact that:

"...so many people apologize, and immediately say 'forgive me'. And, maybe this will sound a little weird, but sometimes it feels like they ask for forgiveness as a way of not really dealing with the damage they've caused."

He calls this "'Apology At Gunpoint'; where if you don't 'forgive and forget' immediately, you become the problem."

He's not down on apologies -- just the fake ones that we all tend to do just a little more often than we should.

Consuming Jesus

Scot McKnight is reading through Paul Metzger's book, Consuming Jesus, and doing a discussion of it on his blog. It's about how consumerism has invaded the western church. Metzger sees that as the root of inherant racism and classism (why whites only go to white churches, blacks go to black chruches, people only fellowship with people their own social class etc.). Basically, it's because the chuch has swallowed the consumerist lie, that everyone is entitled to what they want. Keep the customer satisfied, at all costs, even if it means trashing the costs of discipleship. He sees the born again experience as being the answer -- the vital ingredients being regeneration, repentance and reconciliation.

From this blog: a loud "Amen!"

money, happiness and repentance

Some of the comments from Scott Adams blog (see my previous post) are revealing, indeed, when you consider how important our attitude towards money is in the Kingdom of God.

The Gospels and Acts show repentance and one's attitude towards money as inseparably linked. The story of the rich young ruler is probably the best place to start.

If we begin with Yeshua's conversation with the rich young ruler, take in some of His other comments on discipleship, and work our way into Acts, and observe how the earliest believers responded to the call to repent, we definitely see a pattern. While no one told the crowds in Jerusalem at Pentecost, "Sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow Yeshua", as Yeshua told the rich young ruler, that's exactly what many of them did.

Before we go on to some of the more obvious hang-ups some may have with this pattern, let's consider two more aspects of this:

Consider the proverb, "The love of money is the root of all evil" (I Tim 6:10): If conversion is defined by deliverance from evil, then the early believers certainly proved it by showing that they were no longer controlled by the love of money.

If we defined it from a positive viewpoint, we could say that the life of Messiah is characterised by the commandment, "love your neighbour as yourself". What obvious characteristics would you expect of someone who truly loved their neighbour at least as equally as they loved themselves? How could such a person fail to be lavishly generous? That's exactly what the early believers in Jerusalem exemplified, and it's exactly the intent of Yeshua's answer to the rich young ruler. Remember, that Yeshua built up to this answer by listing those of the Ten Commandments that would relate to loving ones neighbour.

The above description obviously doesn't describe the average Christian of our day. I won't even say it describes me, but I hope I'm on my way there. Because it is such a high ideal, and people don't tend to like measuring themselves by what they're not, this isn't a very popular train of thought.

Most believers today would choose not to associate Yeshua's answer to the rich young ruler with Christian conversion. That's "Old Testament dispensation", they say. They'd rather look to Paul's answer to the Phillippian jailor, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved...".

I believe that Yeshua's answer to the rich young ruler is just as relevant to Christian conversion and the born again experience as Paul's answer to the Phillipian jailor. Despite some popular theology that says otherwise, there is no scripture passage in the Bible that says that Yeshua'a teachings are not meant for believers living in the "age of grace", which Yeshua came to innaugerate. The first New Testament church began on the foundation of Yeshua's teaching. Paul's epistles came later. To truly understand Paul, you have to know where he was coming from, and what his listeners already understood. In most cases, he was writing to churches that already had a solid foundation in Yeshua's teaching. When he talked about faith, they knew what it meant.

So, why didn't Paul tell the jailor in Phillippi to sell everything he had?

Because the Phillippian jailor was coming to Paul with a different attitude than that of the rich young ruler. He was trembling under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, whereas the rich young ruler was following a half hearted desire to be spiritually "with it". Up to that time, in the prison, Paul and Silas weren't just singing some nice little ditties to keep themselves happy despite their circumstances. They were doing spiritual warfare, which had begun with the exorcism of the spirit medium, and climaxed with the earthquake. The loosing of the fetters was symbolic of what was happening in the spirit realm. There was an atmosphere in that room like there was in Jerusalem, while Peter was preaching during Pentecost. He didn't have to tell them to sell everything and give it to the poor. The Holy Spirit did that.

It's also interesting that after such a start, the believers of Philippi were also noted for their generosity. Paul comments on that more than once in his epistles (II Corinthians and Philippians).

When Yeshua told the rich young ruler to sell everything, he wasn't laying down an Old Testament type law. He was giving him a tailor made plan to prepare him for the Kingdom of God, just like the Holy Spirit will do for each of us, if we let him, and like the Holy Spirit did for the early believers. Yeshua knew what his hang up was. He was probably saving him from a fate like that of Annanias and Sapphira.

We know it wasn't a hard and fast rule (selling all), because a few verses later, Zakkheus was so turned on that he announced he was giving half of his riches away to the poor. Yet, Yeshua didn't say, "Not enough, give it all". No. He said, "Salvation has come to this house".

I believe that if we had the discernment and the boldness that Yeshua had with the rich young ruler, that Peter had with Annias and Sapphira, Simon the sorcerer, etc., we'd begin to see the same power that the early church saw.

But are we willing to pay the price?

Keith Green's legacy

I recently finished reading No Compromise, the life story of Keith Green, written by his wife, Melody Green.

The fact that it was written by his wife, is a good indicator. For many seeminly impressive individuals, their wife would be the last one they'd want telling their story. Wives know too much.

No Compromise is a must-read for every believer in Messiah. In parts, it's a tear-jerker -- and by that, I mean it's about facts and events that make God cry. Read about the revival that almost was at Oral Roberts University; which should have gone on for weeks and months, spread throughout the nation and the world, and could have made a difference in the state the Western church is in today; but instead, was abruply shut down through human intervention. Talk about grieving the Spirit.

Also, read of the general lukwarm state of the church then, Keith's burning desire to light a fire that would move believers from their apathy into true live-changing repentance, and then reflect on the state of the church today. Keith Green did influence a lot of individual believers, and continues to do so, but according to Barna's report, the Western Church is in an even worse state than ever.

Read it and weap.

I found my copy in a used book shop in the shoping arcade of Europa Bus Centre in Belfast. Besides the printed version, I see, on the website of Last Days Ministries that a computer text version is available on CD along with a complete selection of Keith Green's songs. There is also a large archive of articles by Keith Green and others on that website.

No Questions Allowed

Why is it that in the church scene, if you ask certain questions, people look at you as though you just walked in without your trousers on? I mean, some questions aren't even allowed in discussion groups! I'll list a few examples -- but let me quickly say, lest you feel inclined to look at ME in that way, I am not raising these questions myself. They are the questions asked by people who presently feel alienated from today's church scene, partly because they aren't allowed to ask them, or if they do ask, they're expected to settle for a briefly worded explanation, such as, "The Bible says, blah blah blah. End of discussion." I'm talking about questions like:
-- Did Jesus REALLY die on the cross and rise the third day? (the inquirer cites either Islamic belief, or something about some deep dark secret location somewhere in France, closely kept under cover by the Catholic Church, or the Knights Templar, which is in fact the final resting place of Jesus, son of Joseph)
-- How do we know that the books of the Bible are all inspired by G-d, or if other books shouldn't have been included that weren't, or if some of the books that were, shouldn't have been?
-- How can we be so sure we don't reincarnate? What about people who remember there previous lives?
-- Why can't Christians be gay? (the inquirer either cites Bible references like John leaning on Jesus' bosom, or points out the existence of gay churches)
-- Is hell really eternal? Is it really the destination of every single person on earth who didn't choose the Christian religion?
-- Did the holocaust really happen? (inquirer cites data from Neo-Nazi sources that support their assertion that the systematic extermination of Jews during World War II didn't really happen)
...I'm sure you can think of many more.
My point is, by maintaining an environment in which such things are never to be questioned, even by the serious doubter, we're losing a whole generation, both by barring them from the front door, and by members slipping out the back.
According to an article in the WASHINGTON TIMES, October 18, 2002 FLOCK STRAYS FROM U.S. CHURCHES about a growing number of people who have lost their faith, and have decided that "their earlier choice [to follow Jesus] was no longer right", "... those who leave have often put in years, even decades, of dedicated service ... Others who 'drift away' from their earlier faith often cite logical contradictions between belief and everyday experiences ... Many are felled by a crisis of faith that sends people into agnosticism or antagonism. Others say their faith is irrelevant to their daily lives..." (I found the link to this article on the www.e-church.com blogsite)
Could it be that we've forced people to keep up the mature, confident "know-it-all" front until they've finally buckled under all the pressure? The rest of us who haven't buckled under yet, are we trying so hard to hold on to what we believe, that we refuse to entertain questions? Are we, by our heroic holding of our forts, the ones thus maintaining this stoic "club house" atmosphere?
If so, we're both locking out the current generation that badly needs to see an example of TRUE FAITH, and we're burning ourselves out in the process. If the church were a place where doubts could be freely expressed instead of buried, just maybe, that could relieve some of the pressure, before some of us reached a breaking point in our walk with G-d. That would also make us better prepared to be honest and open and "ready to give a defence to everyone who asks ... a reason for the hope that is in [us], with MEEKNESS and FEAR" (I Peter 3:15). Meekness is something we certainly lack when asked uncomfortable questions, though we seem to be in pleanty of fear -- although I think FEAR OF G-D is what Peter had in mind, not the other.
But the key word I want to dwell on is "true faith". Mental assent to Christian precepts, however hard we cling on to them to maintain our corporate identity, is not true faith. Many of us began with true faith, but ended up in mental assent.
Faith is the opposite of fear. Real faith won't fear what questions people will ask. Mental assent does.
"Without faith, it's impossible to please G-d, because those who approach Him, must believe that He is, and that He rewards those who diligent seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6)
Real faith leads us into relationship. It's a seeking for Him, and having found Him getting to know Him. Knowing Him is a so much more secure place to be. That, of course, leads to opening up to one another. Mental assent only maintains status quo, and does nothing to break down barriers to relationship.
Faith is simple, but for many of us, keeping ourselves in faith, as opposed to mental assent can be an uphill battle at times. The secret is to keep at it. That's what the "good fight of faith" is (I Tim 6:12). The trouble with many of us is we've lost sight of that battle long ago, and have reverted to fighting to maintain our mental assent.
Faith is dependable. You can lean on it. We're afraid to lean on mental assent, out of fear of finding out that what we've held on to all this time wasn't real after all. To find out that G-d doesn't come through when we need him, or that Jesus really didn't rise from the dead 2000 years ago, would simply shatter our self identity. Should anyone actually venture to lean on their faith for any reason, mental assenters always gasp, "Presumption!" (what presumption really is, is thinking you have faith when all you have is mental assent).
Faith keeps us in the real world -- which is filled with people asking the kinds of questions I've listed above. Mental assent isn't strong enough to face the real world, so it keeps us sheltered in a fantasy world where those kinds of questions can't enter -- where those honestly asking those kinds of questions wouldn't want to enter anyway.
Because it's founded in the real world, Faith is based on the actual fact of what Jesus did for us in the real world. Mental assent is afraid, deep down inside, that if one were given the opportunity to travel backwards in time 2000 years minus 33, one just might not find the resurrected Yeshua of Nazareth showing Himself alive to His disciples. Rather, one might find either a Jesus who's still dead, or a Jesus who mysteriously avoided death, only to die naturally many years later, or someone who is the antithesis of who we believe in today. Therefore mental assent goes out of its way to avoid any argument that would possibly lead to that conclusion.
Mental assent is fearful that maybe what we believe in isn't true after all, but must still cling to it for dear life, because ones identity is wrapped up in it. We've been in it too long. We've gained a measure of status in the Christian community, and to keep it requires us to cling on to the tenants of the faith.
So, if we suspect that what we've been living on is mental assent, not faith, what do we do?
If we suspect that we're quickly losing our grip on this whole thing, and about to go the way of many others, what is the urgent first step?
Yeshua said, "Seek and you shall find...", "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness..."
If we seek Him, we'll find Him. But Hebrews 11:6, referred to above, says we must believe that He's there to be found.
But how do we believe when all we have is mental assent?
Often, we have just a teeny weeny bit of faith, but it's buried under a giant pile of mental assent. "G-d has dealt to each one a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3). The secret is to dig it out.
Some hints how to look for it:
Romans 10:17, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by a word regarding Messiah." That can come from the Bible, or from a spoken word inspired by G-d.
Another place to look for it: In the New Testament, we often find faith listed after "repentance": i.e. -- Mark 1:15 "REPENT and BELIEVE the good news"; Hebrews 6:2 "...REPENTANCE from dead works, FAITH towards G-d...", a few places in Acts and others as well.
Repentance can involve a lot of different things depending on who you are. For the rich young ruler, it meant selling everything he owned, giving it to the poor, and following Yeshua. Yeshua required him to give up all his comfort and all his status in the world he lived in, and follow His idea of reality.
What about our status and comfort of the church world we live in? What about all the benefits we're clinging on to by holding our mental assent? ...our "good old boy" image? ...our title of "reverend"?
Maybe for some of us, this means throwing everything we thought we believed up in the air, being honest with G-d, and saying, "If you're real, which just a tiny bit of me genuinely believes you are, take all this and piece it all together again as faith. In the process, I'm willing to give up my standing in this pretend world I've been living in, and lose myself in the real world."
You won't really be lost, because the real world is where G-d lives.