Having this verse (Jeremiah 23:6) in mind this morning I came across this brilliant piece of writing from the late J. C. Ryle, formerly Bishop of Liverpool.

“This is His name whereby He shall be called—the Lord our Righteousness.” Jeremiah 23:6.

The time is short. It is but a little while, and the Lord Jesus shall come in His glory. The judgment shall be set and the books shall be opened. “Before Him shall be gathered all nations,” “that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad.” The inmost secrets of all hearts shall be revealed; “and the kings of the earth, the nobles, the military commanders, the rich, the powerful, and every slave and free person,” will stand together on a level at the judgment, and will see each other face to face, and one by one will have to give account of themselves to God before the whole world. Thus it is written, and therefore it is true and sure to come to pass.

And what does each of you intend to say in that hour? What is the defense you are prepared to set up? What is the answer you propose to give? What is the cause you mean to show why sentence should not be pronounced against you? Read on…

none

A reading from the third chapter of ‘All of Grace’ by C. H. Spurgeon focused on God’s promise to justify unrighteous and unholy sinners, which means both you and I are included:

The full text

3 com

A Humble Petition for the Qu’ran in Churches*

[An open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury]

To the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop Doctor Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, the undersigned offer obedient greeting.

Your Grace will perhaps wonder, Most Reverend Lord, what this unusual action of writing a letter to yourself means, and not without reason. For nature has ordained that the unexpected should create not only wonder, but at times even a feeling of dumbfoundedness. Yet, we would have you to be entirely free and undisturbed in regard to this matter which we are laying before you. For we do not come to your Grace in regard to anything very troublesome, but to find help. For we are so sure that you are both a most pious lord and a most loving father that there is nothing we do not promise ourselves from you. And this fact itself shows, for we should never have ventured to write to your Grace unless we had had thorough confidence in it. We desire, therefore, humbly to beg you to listen to what we are going to disclose a little later, to hear it graciously, and to take it in good part. This is demanded both by the matter itself which drives us to this appeal and by the office which you fill as Archbishop of Canturbury.

The matter itself, to come to it at last, is this: Your Most Reverend Lordship knows how for a long time the heavenly teachings which God, the creator of all things, willed to have made plain unto the poor race of men by one no way inferior to himself, by his Son, in all things his equal, have, not without the utmost loss to the cause of salvation, been lying hidden through the ignorance, not to say evil intentions, of certain persons, and how rudely, when he had determined to recall and renew those teachings in our day by a sort of second revelation, certain persons attack or defend them. Therefore, Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop, we beseech you by our Lord Jesus Christ, not to join those who aim at putting under a bushel, nay, at extinguishing, the light that came into the world to illumine all men, and who call evil good and good evil, turning sweet into bitter and light into darkness, but rather to join those who have this one desire, that the whole concourse of Christians return to their head, which is Christ, and form one body in him, and having received the spirit of God, recognise the blessings bestowed upon them by God.

Yet, despite the great progress made in the past centuries, it is clear that some have taken things too far. Some have elevated the Bible to a God in itself. Forgetting that the Bible is mostly the response of past generations to God, they have treated the scriptures as if they were breathed out by God himself! Thankfully, in recent times, there has been a departure from this most foul idolatry and a return to a more balanced and man-centred theology. This being the case, and as it seems to be now well accepted within the Anglican Communion, we hope for no more than our concept of scriptures to be expanded in accordance with this realism. We must stop scriptural exclusivism and move away from the “the response of man to God in my book is right because I like the guys who wrote it” school of theology!

Now, let it not be denied that since the death and resurrection of our Lord most notable events have taken place, not least of which being the rise of the Islamic teachings comprised in the book known as the Qu’ran. Whilst we understand that some have been led away from what the Bible says by these teachings, others have benefited from reading them whilst remaining within the Christian faith. We note with interest the compatibility of professing them both has even been observed by Anglican clergy. The marked proliferation of the text shows the great demand that the soul has to read it, for our hearts keenly desire it. It gives clear instruction on the living of a life, clear traditions and rites to be observed, and a picture of the Trinity which is much simpler than the Biblical doctrine. So, on what basis can this text be withheld and suppressed any longer? On what basis may we continue to rule against it, given that it is but words and forms the implication of which depends so much upon personal interpretation?

The body of Christians today under your charge then are the subject of the most cruel persecution, the most inequitable suppression, the most illiberal dictatorial censorship. Despite gathering together for religious purposes on regular occasions, this text (which is undeniably religious in nature and held in very high esteem by many of the most learned men of our day) is not permitted as reading matter. Despite the commentary it offers upon the Bible, the novel interpretations of Biblical events, and the importance of all mankind uniting around a common understanding, our Churches stubbornly refuse to give place to the Qu’ran.

Unfairly banned from churches

We are aware that there is an argument amongst some fundamentalist parts of the Anglican Communion that claim the Qu’ran is not the work of God; however we as men are not able to rule on that as the Bible says nothing about the Qu’ran and indeed the Bible says “judge not”. Even if it is not the work of God, it must be allowed that we permit many works which are not of God to be read and used in our Churches, including hymnals, prayer books and notice sheets. On what basis can we allow ‘Jerusalem’ to be sung – which is neither the work of God nor resplendent with the name of Jesus – but not the Qu’ran, which at least some believe to be of God and does contain the name of Jesus in many places?

The time for silence has passed, the time for speech is now. We can remain silent no longer in the face of this narrow-minded traditionalism. How can we, with one breath, declare the Creation narrative as a fiction created to explain complex matters to ignorant man, and then refuse place to the Qu’ran because some think it less than historically accurate? Let’s face it, modern Anglican theology will tolerate the denial of the substitutionary atonement, practicing of prayer for the dead in purgatory, pilgrimages to visit statues of dead Christians (and often non-Christians!), the parading around of baked goods as if they were God himself, and all manner of other concepts both Ancient and Modern. Why do we still cling to the sixteenth century concept of Religious Isolationism? If we can accept priests who think they are ‘of the order of Aaron’ and who try to break the body of God and offer up sacrifices on an altar, what is wrong with accepting the deeply edifying and morally instructive contents of the Qu’ran?

We further realise that some believe the Qu’ran to be contrary to the Christian faith. Those who allege such misunderstand our design entirely, for we hope it to be read not to be believed, but to be heard. What in Christianity is there that forbids a man’s ears from hearing words which are read? We are confident in the inherent goodness of man, and his ability to discern and choose what is right and good. In one God, in one faith, in one baptism we shall certainly be made one, for these are one. Do you not see that we can give place for the Qu’ran in this structure? A man will still acknowledge one God, one faith (for who can hold two simultaneously?), and one baptism. What more can we ask, and indeed what more should we ask? Let us drop all pretense, and embrace that which our brothers and sisters in Abraham have long recognised as an important text.

This is our humble proposal; it has long been the practice for the Old Testament texts to be read in Churches, and yet nobody really knows what they mean. They talk about stuff which has no relationship or direct application to our lives today. Who cares about the furnishings of an ancient tent, or the names of the sons of Levi? Rather, this has been time usually wasted in empty listening. A review of the New Testament shows that the important stuff from the Old Testament is generally mentioned there anyway, and so we think it no loss to discard the Old Testament. What merit is there in hearing tired stories of long dead people in an alien culture? This time now freed can be used for reading the Qu’ran, something much more educational and informative to the congregations. Many will never have heard from the Qu’ran before, and so this will be new and breathtaking – indeed it could well lead to a great increase in Church membership and collection plate revenues! Lest our proposal seems too extreme, let the Old Testament stories be retained in Sunday Schools, for that is where they are most useful anyway. We would not wish to deprive children of fun stories of brave men or big battles.

Further, through reading of the Qu’ran, we will be able to increase in the degree to which we understand our neighbours of the Islamic faith, and may even have the opportunity to make them Church members. As many worship on Friday afternoons, they may relish the chance to come to a Sunday morning service at which the Qu’ran is read and where they can pray in a devotional atmosphere. Needless to say, even these persons will increase the collections.

If, however, you cannot possibly be persuaded to grant it, we beseech you at least not to forbid it. We think you are brave enough to do right without fear of those who can even slay the body. And in fact you will have to refrain at least from interfering. For there is a report that most of the ecclesiastics have already departed from the heretical idea of the Bible being the inerrant word of God, and are already leading their congregations into a much more understanding and modern theology, more in agreement with how we suppose God wished us to understand him in our present culture. Accordingly, scorn our petition not as of little account; for if in our quest for a more complete religion we cast out the most important resource of the Qu’ran, all will suffer and we will be needlessly disunited from our brothers in Abraham.

The Most High God long preserve your Grace in prosperity and in the knowledge of God! We pray with all humility that you will take all we have said in a spirit of justice and kindness.

Your Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop Doctor’s most obedient servants;

THE UNDERSIGNED

*With apologies to Huldreich Zwingli, who unlike this letter, was entirely serious

4 com

Where do you see true love?
“Dear wife, to show you how much I love you, I have left my food uneaten for so long that I have given myself stomach pains. I have put on uncomfortable clothes, and spent my time afflicting myself with all manner of hardships. Are you deeply touched by my devotion?”

“Dear husband. Thank you for your note. To show you how much I love you, I visited your mum who was ill, I have loved, fed, taught and dressed your children, I’ve been kind to those you care about and tried to help all those I know you would want to be helped. Are you deeply touched by my devotion?”

Why have we fasted, and you see it not? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?

Why have we fasted, and you see it not? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it? Click for clearer perspective

Isaiah 58:3-7
{Dear God,} “Why have we fasted, and you see it not?
Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?”

{Dear Man,} “Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure,
and oppress all your workers.

Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to hit with a wicked fist.
Fasting like yours this day
will not make your voice to be heard on high.

Is such the fast that I choose,
a day for a person to humble himself?
Is it to bow down his head like a reed,
and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
Will you call this a fast,
and a day acceptable to the LORD?

Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?”

OK, but don’t you know God asked for fasting in the Old Testament?
Good question. I can’t find any such command. Leviticus 16:29 establishes the day of atonement, which instructs the Israelites to ‘afflict themselves’. But, the word here translated afflict does not mean fast. The word (ענה) primarily bears the sense of ‘to humble’, ‘to be put down’, or ‘to become low’. So in the legislation to establish this day, which kept even now by fasting, there does not seem to be a command to actually fast.

In Deuteronomy 8:2 and 8:16 the same word is used to talk of the ways in which God humbled or afflicted the Israelites, both through the long wandering and also through the feeding with manna. Eating manna cannot be considered a fast of avoiding food, and that this and the wandering are properly termed afflictions and judged such by God is testified to by the passage.

So, afflicting the soul does not necessarily mean abstaining from food; yet, perhaps this sense does exist in other places. If we find fasting described as affliction, what is the origin of this action – is it the direction of God or the design of man?

Psalm 35:13 describes just this relationship between affliction and fasting; but this choice of action is attributed by the text to the Psalmist rather than to God – “I afflicted myself with fasting” as opposed to “The Lord asked me to afflict myself with fasting”. It is, here at least, a human response rather than a divine direction.

Ezra 8:21 describes a fast for the purpose of humbling (this is the same word used for ‘afflict’ in the Hebrew text). Again the originator of this fast is man, “then I proclaimed”, rather than God. The pattern seems to be that man understands the will of God that he humble himself, and responds by designing a fast to achieve this.

Perhaps it would be instructive to look into the New Testament texts as well, as to the nature and purpose of affliction. The foremost affliction – at least by consequence – is that of Christ, who afflicted his body by humbling himself at the hands of man even to death upon the cross (Colossians 1:24). This affliction did not take the purpose of self-humbling for its own good. The affliction served a direct end, indeed it was to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. It was through his afflictions that he came to share the living bread with the hungry, to bring the homeless poor into his own house in reconciliation to God; to cover the sins of man with his own perfect righteousness, and that his glory might be revealed unto all the nations. Perhaps the model for humbling ourselves should be found in Christ rather than Jewish tradition?

Paul will later write to Timothy of our own afflictions after the pattern of Christ, and will encourage the preaching of the Gospel, not only despite the afflictions, but that Timothy might share in them (II Timothy 1:8; II Timothy 4:5). When James comes to touch on the topic of affliction, he describes it not as an empty act of devotion, but as a real and effectual part of repentance; that is, the affliction we should properly bring upon ourselves in humbling our proud and sinful selves before God (James 4:8-9).

The lack of actual instruction from God to fast from food, even in the Old Testament passages which Jews even today presume to instruct them to fast, both explains why God can speak as he does through Isaiah (quoted above) and suggests the true father of such practices. If it does not originate from God, but rather from the heart of man, does that not already testify to its pedigree? Does not the frequency of fasting found within other major religions not give us a hint? Yet, if such a suggestion is not clear enough, perhaps we might consider I Timothy 4:1-4. Paul here says very plainly and without the slightest hint of ambiguity that it is the teaching of demons to abstain from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving.

The same conclusions can be obtained by considering the end of this abstaining from foods. First, in what is achieved, and secondly, in what is not achieved. The result achieved by such fasting is pride, a man who fulfils a fast he thinks expected of him feels pleased with his work. He may humble himself for a time, yet after the time is spent he exalts himself all the more. Now, pride is the enemy of humility; and so the fast brings about the opposite result to afflicting the soul – instead of humbling a man it fosters vainglory and self-righteousness in him. Second, what is not achieved is all that guilt would otherwise drive a man to perform. Having sight of his sins and failings through the grace of God, a man is humbled from his self-righteousness and compelled by knowing his guilt before almighty God and to repent and endeavour to keep God’s commands, living in love and peace with all men. Yet, if he fasts, he will assuage his guilt, and regain his feeling of self-righteousness having done nothing but give himself a stomach ache! What a perversion of the God-given conscience to respond by seeking to annul it by a self-serving and ultimately useless abstinence, rather than striving all the more to live a life of servant-hood in gratitude for the work of Christ!

I do not presume to suggest that fasting is in itself wrong; but I do suggest that if it is taking the place of true contrition, repentance and amending of one’s ways, if it is allowing wicked men to feel a little better about their wickedness without even thinking of reconciling their wrongs, if it is allowing sinners to feel they have paid off some of their sin by obtaining stomach cramps – then it does (at the least) more harm than it does good. The affliction the Bible directs us towards is not a self-righteous and self-serving abstinence from food, as if a hypocrite with a belly-ache pleases God, but rather to that much harder fast – the humble service of one another in love to the glory of God. How much more is God be glorified by a day committed to humble service than by a day committed to starving?

John 21:15 “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”

What do you think about the topic, and my observations?

7 com

Subscribe to Emails