Reflections on The Benedict Option

The Benedict Option is in one respect (despite the Eastern Orthodoxy of the author) a kind of reformation cry to the modern church. Taking its title from the 6th-century monastic Saint Benedict who established the Benedictine monastic order in Italy, the central premise, and thesis of the Benedict Option is that Christians today need to become 'lay' monastics.

The author Rod Dreher begins the book by laying out the historical background that has led to the secularism that is now besieging the church. Interestingly, Dreher doesn't just go back to the Enlightenment, which would be somewhat of a natural starting point in many peoples' minds, but to the dismantling of the medieval worldview of Christian metaphysical realism. Dreher attributes the phenomenon of 'nominalism' spearheaded by William of Ockham as breaking the prevailing medieval metaphysical worldview leading inadvertently to a more subjective worldview in its place. He claims;

But if the infinite God reveals Himself through finite matter, does that not imply limitation? Ockham thought so. He denied metaphysical realism out of a zeal to protect God's sovereignty. He feared that realism restricted God's freedom of action... This idea implies that objects have no intrinsic meaning, only meaning assigned to them and therefore no meaningful existence outside the mind. p.27-28

Now, I have not read what other scholars may have to say about Dreher's evaluation, whether it is generally accepted as accurate or not; but taking Dreher's analysis at face value, I think it shows the providence of God in allowing nominalism with all its good intentions to take hold in the late middle ages despite sowing the seeds for the anti-Christian secularism that was to be reaped from it several hundred years later. That is both an encouraging thought, but also perplexing as well.

Dreher uses the Benedictine Rule, created by Benedict himself upon establishing his monastic order, to derive principles for modern 'Benedict Option Christians' to follow. His chapter on politics I thought was quite insightful. Though, as the book is heavily American-centric I would be interested to hear how one of you might react to or interpret his views. Dreher, drawing upon Eastern bloc dissidents during Communist rule calls for Christians to engage in what has been called 'antipolitical politics'. Dreher drawing upon the work by political theorist Patrick Deneen writes,

Enlightenment liberalism, from which both U.S. parties are descended, is built on the premise that humans are by nature "free and independent," and that the purpose of government is to liberate the autonomous individual... This is contrary to what both Scripture and experience teach us about human nature. p.90

 I found this particularly thought-provoking as it cuts to the heart of why political activism by Christians is not enough to stop the moral and cultural damage to society of secularism: the entire philosophical framework of modern politics is based on a fundamentally unChristian view of Man. None of us believe Man to be fundamentally good, but nonetheless to recognize that both parties in America have as their starting point the same basic premise of human nature and just reach different conclusions about arriving at a shared goal, is helpful to re-evaluating our expectations of governments to uphold Christian principles. We are working within a flawed system not just because of sinful Man, but also because of a misguided anthropology. We shouldn't just assume that the political system is value neutral by itself.

What does this mean for us here in Japan? Well, modern Japanese politics has been taken from the West and so probably suffers from the same problem. However, the emphasis on politics as community-focused rather than legislative-focused is something we can practically do. We can seek to create a community within our churches and reach out to the local communities surrounding us with our values and beliefs so as to begin building a parallel society to the prevailing secular or anti-Christian one.

Later in the book when discussing the concept of the Christian Village, Dreher contends;

In fact, as the threat to orthodox Christianity grows at the hands of hostile government, Christians should take seriously a Tocquevillian contention made by the sociologist Robert Nisbet, who said that religious liberty itself depends on strong religious communities. p.123

Dreher goes to great pains to stress the importance of building strong Christian networks and church communities. He even advocates the advantages of members living in close proximity to their churches in order to strengthen the community bond and play a more active part in church life. Towards the end of the book, he also encourages Christians whenever and wherever possible to buy from Christian businesses, shops, and other services and give them priority even if they are more expensive than their secular counterparts. However, this may be difficult here in Japan, given the tiny percentage of Christians.

In his chapter on education, he candidly calls for Christian parents to remove their children from public schools and either homeschool them or find good Christian schools, preferably Classical Christian Academies, which are based on the trivium model of grammar, logic, and rhetoric as well as a focus on teaching Western Civilization. Speaking of parents who seek for their children to be salt and light in the public school system, he opines;

As popular culture continues its downward slide, however, this rationale begins to sound like a rationalization. It brings to mind a father who tosses his child into a whitewater river in hopes that she'll save another drowning child. p.157

Whatever your reaction to his analogy whether you think it crass or even offensive, Dreher does have a point about the torrent of unbiblical morality and anti-Christian social philosophy that is flowing through our present day education system.  I have also heard him use the metaphor of not taking a candle out into a gale force storm in responding to some of his critics. The chapter on education definitely made me reflect on my own employment at KIUA and our mission as a Christian school. I think we are doing a better job of combining the moral formation of our students as well as achieving high academic grades and standards. However, we can do better and I hope to be able to help the school achieve the level of biblical worldview integration required.

In various iterations, the book returns to the central theme of living out the Christian life and faith in strong Christian communities. The Benedictine Order through its Rule and monasticism preserved a strong 'Christian' community down through the centuries. Naturally, there is a strong emphasis in monasticism on asceticism. Benedictine monks fast regularly. Dreher calls Christians to rediscover fasting in its traditional form but also applies the principle of fasting and asceticism in his chapter on technology.

Monks find true liberty by submitting to a rule of life, which is to say by ordering themselves to God in a structured way... The woodworker who has given himself over to learning the traditions of his craft has far more liberty to exercise his creativity within the craft than the foolish amateur who thinks he can make it up as he goes along. p.227

If you don't control your own attention, there are plenty of people eager to do it for you. The first step in regaining cognitive control is creating a space of silence in which you can think. p.227-228

He then proposes something dubbed a "digital Sabbath" (p.228) whereby for one day a week we disconnect from all technology, particularly computers, iPads, and smartphones. This immediately appealed to me, but I also thought it is highly impractical given our modern dependence on technology. If it is a case of merely using technology for entertainment or communication one day is definitely manageable and practical. But, for those of us who rely on it for studying and work, committing one day a week could be difficult and problematic. Nevertheless, if I could manage my time and plan far enough ahead in advance of deadlines etc. then I think I may try experimenting with keeping a digital Sabbath.

There is a chapter on sex and the importance of sexual purity against the ravages of pornography and abstinence until marriage. The book also calls upon the church and Christian parents to teach children about sex and the dangers of pornography at age appropriate levels. Obviously, monks are celibate, but the point is made that monks voluntarily take a vow of celibacy not because they think the body evil or hate sex, but to testify to the beauty and gift of sex in its right God ordained and designed place - marriage. I found this quote interesting,

Why should Christians pay attention to the teachings on sexuality of monastics, who live in chastity? Don't they hate sex? Of course they don't, any more than they hate good food because they often fast, hate words because they live in great silence, hate families because they don't marry, or hate material things because they live simply... their asceticism is a testimony to the goodness of those divine gifts. p.196 

 

Dreher doesn't push Eastern Orthodoxy over and above Protestantism or Roman Catholicism and he is very careful throughout the book to provide examples from all three traditions of 'Benedict Option Christians'. He wants all Christians to go back to the roots of their respective traditions. This may end up kicking over a hornet nest as far as the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate again, but perhaps we could think as a church which creeds and catechisms we could agree on to incorporate into our Sunday morning worship and Sunday school curriculum. Naturally, we want to be completely biblical and Scripture-centred in our Christian culture, but there is much for us to celebrate in our Protestant tradition. As this year marks the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, it may be a good time to think about how our church can be more 'reformational'.

There's a lot more I could say about the book, but I hope some of you will read it for yourselves and that we can engage in dialogue about our personal reflections. Overall, I think Dreher is arguing that we as Christians need to rediscover the beauty and goodness of Christian community as we seek to live as lay monastics in our homes, churches, schools and communities. Again, I have heard him retort to his critics that he is not advocating running to the hills in a negative sense, but running positively towards Christ. And I do think there is a critical and important distinction between the two. In essence, I agree with Dreher that we need to run towards Christ and a biblical way of life and community not out of fear of secularism or society, but out of love for Jesus and the joy found in knowing Him and belonging to Him and being His bride.

To conclude, a general thought and takeaway from the book for me were the idea of the beauty of the teaching of the gospel. If we love Christ and value Him and the beauty of the gospel above all other things that this world has to offer then we will become more attractive to people outside the church. Titus 2:9-10 says,

9 Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

 The NIV translates v.10 as make attractive the teachings of God. The ESV and NASB both translate it adorn. In this case, the NIV is a little more impactful for me, at least conceptually for me to grasp. In many ways, we today are like bondservants in society in the sense that we hold a low position in terms of societal influence and power. Now, I know we are not to be submissive when our governments start demanding we disobey God & Scripture, but the principle I think applies. We are to make the teachings of God and the gospel attractive to people. We do this by living out our faith in the right way scripturally and by reordering our lives and affections around biblical priorities.

 

 

 

Logan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0HRx_0fimc


Few trailers have moved me as much as the first official trailer to Logan. You may think that silly of me, but it's true. There is an art to cutting good trailers and James Mangold the director of Logan has got it down to a fine art. This trailer is masterful in its conjunction of music and visuals; the lyrics and dialogue of which complementing each other, adding layers of depth and emotion one upon the other blurring the lines between poetry and screenplay.

The visuals in the trailer convey a beautiful sense of desolation in their themes of loneliness, age, infirmity and loss. The acting is sublime with every inflection in voice, movement of body and facial expression carrying with it a kind of nobility, whether savage or refined. A sense of nobility that comes with bearing the mantle of two of the most beloved and iconic comic characters in the X-Men franchise for 16 years. It's as if the actors Hugh Jackman and Patrick Steward metaphorically are able to clothe themselves in the skins of these characters.

This trailer is a piece of art. A self contained piece of art. As in any work of art there is an inherent beauty to it, an aestheticism that is intuitively enriching and enlivening. I am not a film critic. I am a layman. But, I have a sense of beauty as we all do. This trailer appealed to that sense of beauty in me. I would go so far as to say this trailer is even an example of high art. You could contest that, and perhaps I am just ignorant of what real high art is. However, I think this trailer elevates the comic book genre. Relative to its genre, I believe this trailer has managed to transcend how we view "superhero" movies. As James Mangold explained regarding the tone of the trailer;

“Hugh and I have been talking about what we would do since we were working on the last one, and for both of us it was this requirement that, to be even interested in doing it, we had to free ourselves from some assumptions that had existed in the past, and be able to change the tone a bit. Not merely to change for change’s sake, but also to make something that’s speaking to the culture now, that’s not just the same style — how many times can they save the world in one way or another? How can we construct a story that’s built more on character and character issues, in a way as if it almost wasn’t a superhero movie, yet it features their powers and struggles and themes?” (Empire)

I think Mangold's philosophy is the correct one. In so doing, I believe this trailer has been able to invoke something deeper, something more profound than your average comic book fare. As Mangold said they had to free themselves of some of the assumptions of comic book movies, and if ever the idiom 'the gloves are off' bore figurative meaning it is surely with the character of Logan. Batman v Superman was a zeitgeist film in many respects and one which was not afraid to broach real world issues. Yet, as much as I love that movie, Logan captures something special in its focus on character. Even the name of the movie 'Logan' speaks volumes to the focus of the movie not being on the superhero Wolverine, but on the person of Logan himself, thus stripping the movie of much of its superhero trappings and distancing itself from the X-Men movies that came before it. The trailer and marketing campaign are far more nuanced and subtle than Batman v Superman. Even the first official poster was ladened with meaning.

So far the marketing campaign for Logan has been flawless. The young girl's hand holding Logan's symbolises vulnerability, dependence and guidance; not to mention affection and tenderness. The simple act of holding someone's hand is one of the most profound expressions of love and affection. Then there is Logan's hand that is simultaneously nurturing and protecting. His claws are protruding symbolising protection and yet his hand is not clenched into a fist thus showing care and affection. Logan has fresh wounds on his wrist, knuckles and thumb indicating that he has recently had to protect her and also that he is doing so without the full strength of his regenerative healing abilities, making his actions even more an act of love and self-sacrifice.

As I said, the photography of this movie both motion and still is absolutely beautiful. There is a true sense of majesty about them. While this movie will no doubt contain scenes of violence, even graphic violence as the red band trailer suggests, nevertheless there is still a sense of the majestic about this trailer. I believe the sense of aestheticism connected to this movie (and all other forms of art as well) comes from the image of God in us. God is beautiful. God's creation is beautiful.

Psalm 27:4 says;

One thing have I asked of the Lord,
    that will I seek after:
that I may dwell in the house of the Lord
    all the days of my life,
to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord
    and to inquire in his temple.

 Psalm 96:5-6 say,

For all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols,
    but the Lord made the heavens.
6 Splendor and majesty are before him;
    strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.

Our hearts have a natural inclination toward beauty. And even though the beauty of this trailer is but a dim reflection, a faint shadow and a hollow echo of God's divine beauty, it nonetheless contains something of the divine beauty by virtue of it being made by divine image bearing people. Yes this movie will contain sin and the distorted morality of a fallen people, but it also contains truth and beauty in its own limited way. Logan is a character most known for his unique adamantium clawed hands; hands which in this movie are scarred and wounded. There was another man whose hands were scarred and wounded for the sake of others, whose hands were pierced on our behalf. And while his death was torturous, the redemption that it accomplished was truly beautiful.

meditations upon being made in God's image - the imago dei

Have you ever wondered what made mankind special? Is man any different from other animals? Are we being guilty of 'speciesism' by asserting that mankind is unique and special amongst the rest of creation?

According to Genesis 1:26-27 (as well as 5:1-2 & 9:2) mankind is unique in as far as we alone are made in the image of God. This is an extraordinary truth. The imago dei is the quintessence of our humanity. So what does it mean to be made in the image of God? Early church fathers understood the image of God to be in man's rational capacity - our mind, will and reason. A linguistic study into the semantic range of the words for "image" and "likeness" resulted in there being a correlation between our physical appearance and anatomical design as well as our rationality to the likeness of God. 

Yet, our uniqueness does not end with our reflection of the image of the God as profound as that thought is. An event in human history amplifies and draws into sharp focus our ability to not just reflect, but actively express the divine nature: the birth of Jesus Christ. 

The birth of Jesus is otherwise known theologically as the incarnation. Without the incarnation of the Son of God there could be no salvation. Scripture such as the book of Hebrews teaches why Jesus had to be both fully God and fully human for our salvation. But, it is not the redemptive aspect to the incarnation that I want to pause and meditate on here. 

Rather, I want to think about one of the most important implications of the incarnation for our understanding of our humanity and our uniqueness in creation. In becoming a human being, Jesus - who was eternally coexistent with God the Father (John 1:1-3, 17:5, Col 1:15-17) - in one sense deified all humanity. Now, please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that we as human beings are gods. Nor am I speaking of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis in which people are believed to be able to achieve deification. However, in one very profound sense, Jesus by condescending to become human and partake in human nature did deify mankind in so far as the triune God personally identified Himself with mankind. 

Jesus is described as the Word in John 1:1. The Word, or Logos in Greek, was with God and was God (John 1:1). The Word then became flesh i.e. human (John 1:14). Logos Christology dominated the theological formulation of doctrine in the first few centuries of the early church (as it should have). Indeed the incarnation of Christ remains a more prevalent theological focus in the Eastern Orthodox Church than it does in the Western Church. 

Recently, I was part of an astronomy workshop, in which the staff member gave us an idea of the size of our solar system and position of it within the milky way. He then continued to show us the size of our milky way galaxy in comparison with the universe. One website I looked at said to imagine our sun as a coin placed on a desk. The nearest star to our sun would be 350 miles away. By this scale the milky way galaxy would be 7.5 million miles across. Though an exact estimate of how large our universe is is very difficult due to the fact that space is still expanding; the universe is estimated to be about 93 billion light years across! These numbers blow the mind. Imagining these sorts of distances is really incomprehensible to our human minds. Yet, the Bible says that God created the heavens and stretched them out (Isaiah 42:5). The Bible also says God determines the exact number of stars and knows them all by name (Psalm 147:5).

Rather than the unimaginable size of the universe being a stumbling block to belief in the incarnation, I think it actually supports it. For if God can create the universe ex-nihilo (out of nothing), and can create a universe 93 billion light years in diameter, then the universe is a testament to God's omnipotence. Indeed, the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). The more we learn about our universe, the more God's glory is magnified. The semantic range of the Hebrew words for "image" and "likeness" as discussed earlier may also provide further evidence of God's omnipotence as to His purpose for the incarnation, which was built into the very design of our physical anatomy.

Jesus, the Logos, became human. Jesus' incarnation makes God the Father's immanence among His creation personal (Col 1:15, 2:9). In becoming a human being, Jesus elevates mankind in ways we could never achieve without the incarnation. Jesus' hypostatic union (between his divinity and humanity) remains a beautiful mystery. Though I use the expression " beautiful mystery", the fact of the matter is that truth always precedes the language and vocabulary needed in order to explain it. As such the very theological language I am using in this blog took centuries of formulation and revision to adequately describe the truth of Christ's two natures found in Scripture.

While mankind will never develop a hypostatic union the same as Christ's, nevertheless Peter does speak of partaking in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). This partaking in the divine nature is only partial now, but will be become more fully realized when we receive our glorified, resurrected bodies. Nevertheless, the Christian is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17) and as such becomes a partaker in the divine nature of the Godhead. Indeed, the Christian is also the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). Thus, not only does the Christian partake of the divine nature of the Godhead in the grace-activated transformation of the heart enabling us to practice holiness, not to mention being given eternal life; but also, we in fact become the very dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, housing the Spirit in our sanctified bodies.

This reality of the Christian experience further reduces the gap between God and man. We are image bearers of our Creator God by virtue of our humanity. And as Christians, we are transformed - or transfigured in a way - to bear the image of Christ (who Himself is the image of the invisible God, Col 1:15). It is this relationship with Christ and the subsequent Christlikeness that Jesus imbues to His followers that acts almost synecdochically for the deification of mankind. Christ in becoming human becomes the new Adam - the heavenly Adam (1 Cor 15:47-49) - and as such the new federal head of mankind. Just as we all are borne after the likeness of the first Adam in our sinful state, so too for the Christian he is borne after the likeness of the second Adam, the heavenly Adam (Christ). And so Christ Jesus comes, in a way, to represent all humanity in His own humanity, thus synecdochically deifying mankind.

This blog cannot plumb the depths of the implications and riches of the incarnation. Nor can this blog adequately survey the catechism of Logos Christology and the Hypostatic Union. I am not even trying to do so. No, this blog is designed to be more of a devotional meditation on our uniqueness among creation as being made in the imago dei and what Christ's incarnation means for us in that respect. I will leave it to you to contemplate what the incarnation means for us spiritually and societally, as well as for yourself personally. I hope this blog has inspired purifying, soul-quenching meditation in that regard.

Blessings.

a call to prayer for our politicians

For those of you who have read my recent series of blogs you will know that I have been meditating upon and animated by the theme of spiritual sojourning. Our faith and hope should not be misplaced in the ability of men (or lack thereof), but in our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, our sojourn in the world does not automatically entail our abandonment of it. Yet, how do we reconcile our sojourn with following the affairs of the world? Paul speaks metaphorically in 2 Corinthians 5 of living in our earthly "tent" (i.e. body) and yet longing to put off the earthly in favour of the heavenly (2 Cor 5:1-2). Here we see another example of Paul's holy discontentment that we saw in Philippians 3:10-11. What is Paul's resolution to this frustration of our eager anticipation of the resurrection body and eternal life? In v.9 Paul says;

So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 

2 Corinthians 5:9

Our aim as Christians should be to please God. How do we please God in our sojourn? One way to please God relevant to the theme of this blog is by making intercessory prayers and supplications for our leaders (1 Tim 2:1-3). Paul says our prayers for all people, including those who rule over us are "good" and "pleasing" in the sight of our Lord (1 Tim 2:3). So if it pleases God to pray for our leaders, and the aim of our Christian walk is to please the Lord then we should pray for those in government.

Therefore, I am exhorting my fellow Christian brothers and sisters in the UK (and elsewhere) to heed the call to intercede for our government and politicians.

Pray with me for the Conservative Party leadership contest. Pray for the Labour Party that is in crisis following the result of the referendum. And pray for the general election that will inevitably take place once the new leader of the Conservative Party has been chosen.

How then should we pray for our government and politicians? We may be jaded or disillusioned with our politicians. We may even resent them and feel bitter towards them. When we feel so negatively towards our politicians it dampens our zeal to pray. Our instinct is not to pray but rather to complain and protest.

Yet, the Christians of the first century whom the New Testament was originally written to had no say or power in choosing their political leaders. And in fact historically, the early church came under enormous pressure and persecution under the Roman Empire. And still, despite such severe treatment - even to the point of shedding blood (Heb 12:4) and martyrdom - the church was still commanded to be in subjection to the ruling government (Rom 13:1).

That command to be in subjection to our rulers is still in effect today. Peter commands the church to be subject to rulers and governors (1 Peter 2:13-14) for this is the will of God (1 Peter 2:15). Peter goes so far as to say that as Christians we should honour everyone, including the emperor (1 Peter 2:17).

We don't have to agree with every policy, decision or belief of our politicians. But we must respect them. And that means praying for all our politicians not just for the political party we vote for.

So, are there any biblical principles we can use to guide us in how to pray and what to pray for? I have been giving this some thought, and I think that we can draw inspiration in our prayers from the qualifications for church elders in 1 Timothy 3:2-7. Now I know that we should not judge the moral character of those outside the church by the same standards for those inside the church (1 Cor 5:9-10); but nevertheless when it comes to appointing or electing leaders and prime ministers of our country, then I think many of these same qualifications apply.

Paul says elders should be the husband of one wife (1 Tim 3:2). Boris Johnson has been married twice, had three affairs and has fathered a love child with one of his mistresses. Therefore, even before Johnson pulled out of the leadership contest, his moral character made him a highly dubious candidate for such a position.

Speaking of the qualifications for deacons later in the same chapter, Paul says deacons should not be greedy for dishonest gain (1 Tim 3:8). While I wouldn't go so far as to say Michael Gove's leadership bid was entirely machiavellian as the conspiracy theory claims, it did reveal that he is a callous and utterly ruthless politician with his own political ambition and agenda. Gove has lost the trust of many Conservative MPs for his last minute sabotage of Johnson's campaign to be prime minister. Therefore, is Gove of the right moral character to be the next prime minister?

My point is not to character-assassinate every candidate for prime minister. My point is that we can use the qualifications for elders and deacons as principles for what to pray for in our leaders. We not only want, but need men and women of integrity, honesty, humility and valour. We need leaders who are qualified, experienced in government and the art of statecraft as well as moral character.

I am a meritocrat. I believe in meritocracy. I believe those who are most qualified for the position should be given the responsibility. My desire is to see every leader of every major political party in Britain be equally qualified to lead our country as potential prime ministers. This is how I will be interceding for our politicians and government in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Join with me in making prayers of supplication and intercession for our leaders. These are disturbing times and dark days. Our leaders need our prayers. Whether they recognize it or not, let alone publicly acknowledge it, our leaders need the Church to intercede for them. Let us not fail them, nor displease our Lord and God for whom we live to please.

a holy discontentment

that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Philippians 3:10-11

Dear friends,

This morning, one of my pastors gave a message about holy discontentment from Philippians 3:10-11. This idea of a holy discontentment in our relationship with Jesus really resonated with me. It resonated with me because of how closely it parallels the theme of sojourning that I have been meditating on just recently.

Are we striving forward in our faith, eager to know Christ better and the power of His resurrection? Are we hungry for a deeper relationship with our saviour? Do we have a burning desire within our souls to become like Jesus in His death? And are we prepared to share in Christ's sufferings?

Those are challenging questions. For me, the thought of becoming satisfied with my relationship with Jesus should be a warning sign that something is wrong. It could be one of the first indications our faith is growing lukewarm (Rev 3:16). And being satisfied with our relationship with Jesus could also reflect another closely related danger of loving this world more than God (1 John 2:15).

If we are spiritual pilgrims sojourning in this world, then we will be more likely to feel that sensation of holy discontentment in our relationship with Jesus. This theme of holy discontentment is profound. Are we content to know we are saved or do we live to make our election sure? (1 Peter 1:10) Are we satisfied with our spiritual walk or are we pressing on towards the goal? (Phil 3:14) Are we content to attend church and call ourselves Christians or are we running the race, throwing off all sin that entangles us? (Hebrews 12:1-2)

Paul speaks in Philippians 3:10 of knowing Jesus and the power of His resurrection. The power of the resurrection! As Christians we all have access to and can live in the power of the resurrection (Rom 8:10-11). And we await our resurrection on the last day. If we as Christians will one day be given resurrection bodies and be transformed putting off the mortal for the immortal and the perishable for the imperishable (1 Cor 15:53), then shouldn't we seek to live not just in the light of, but in the actual power of the resurrection of Christ now?

Paul also speaks of sharing in Christ's sufferings in order to become like Jesus in His death (Phil 3:10). Do we have a holy discontentment to become more like Jesus, even if this means sharing in His suffering? If we are not sojourning in this world, then we are less likely to desire to become more like Jesus, especially in sharing in His sufferings. Is it little wonder Paul wanted to know the power of the resurrection as otherwise, even as an apostle, Paul probably would not have had the ability to share in Christ's sufferings.

The more I live the Christian life and meditate upon what it means to call oneself a Christian, act like a Christian and develop a truly biblical and Christian worldview, the more I am convicted that we must love Jesus above everything else and live for Him before all else.

Jesus said whoever loves father or mother, son or daughter more than Him is not worthy of Him (Matt 10:37). Jesus also said if we wish to be His follower we must die to ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him (Luke 9:23). Do we have a holy discontentment to love Jesus more than anything or anyone else in this world? Are we taking up our cross daily and following Jesus in our sojourn through this life? Whatever our priorities are, if we do not have a holy discontentment then we probably do not have our priorities right.

sojourning in the midst of uncertainty

To my brothers and sisters in Christ in the UK,

This blog is not about telling you how you should feel politically about the decision to leave the E.U. I am sure there were many of you who voted on both sides. Voting on a matter as weighty as leaving the E.U. is a matter of conscience and we will all have different positions that we sincerely hold.

The decision to leave will have further political ramifications, that much has already been confirmed with the resignation of our Prime Minister David Cameron. Scotland too will almost certainly seek a second referendum for independence. And of course, we now have our relationship with the E.U. to negotiate and clarify.

However, I want to come back to the theme of sojourning: spiritual sojourning.

Paul speaks of spiritual contentment (Phil 4:11) as well as the peace of God that surpasses all understanding (Phil 4:7). It is in uncertain times such as these that we must look to Christ for our stability and assurance.

Our country has a long history of political change: the waves of Roman, Saxon, Viking and then Norman conquests. The Civil War that resulted in us becoming a republic under Oliver Cromwell and the beheading of King Charles I. The Acts of unions with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1800). The decline of the British Empire. Times change. Politics changes. And if our contentment is placed in governments, or institutions or political treaties then our worlds will inevitably fall into confusion and we shall have no peace.

Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's vision of a great statue made of gold and silver, bronze, iron and clay (Daniel 2). The statue represented the various kingdoms of the ancient world, each one succeeding the last. And a stone cut from a mountain was hurled at the statue smashing it to pieces. This stone represented the kingdom of God. It is an everlasting kingdom.

As Christians, we are sojourners in this world precisely because we belong to this everlasting and enduring kingdom. Despite the tremendous change that has taken place in the world over the past two thousand years, God has faithfully preserved for Himself a remnant: His Church. We are members of God's Church - the bride of Christ - and as such we are part of something bigger and greater than any one country or even group of countries. We are part of a history and tradition and kingdom that goes all the way back to Christ. Take heart in this fact. Draw strength from this continuity. And ultimately find rest in the cornerstone of the Church, Christ Jesus Himself (Matt 11:28).

Paul suffered tremendous hardships in his ministry to the gentiles and still found contentment in plenty or in want (Phil 4:11). Let us look to the example of the apostle Paul. The referendum result has been described as a seismic shift in the political life of the UK. The result tells of a nation divided (52% to 48%). Our country is in need of healing. How though will we be able to provide the hope, counsel and reassurance people will be looking for if we ourselves are so caught up in our political affiliations and directing our energy in a political cause?

Please don't misunderstand me; I am not disparaging politics or the importance of our civic duty. There is nothing wrong with supporting a political party. However, my point is that there is something profoundly liberating about being first and foremost a child of God, rather than a British citizen; about finding our identity in Christ (Gal 2:20) rather than in our country. The Church is the pillar and foundation/buttress of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Therefore, let us be the pillar we are called to be. Let us provide our country with the hope, light and truth of the Gospel that it so desperately needs at this time.

Remember, Jesus said foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head (Matt 8:20). As Christians this is fundamentally our reality in this world. We are not of the world (John 15:19).

We are sojourners.

But our sojourning does not mean we are impoverished or to be pitied. We have something the world can never take away from us. Something the world looks for in vain. Let us treasure the kingdom of God as we should (Matt 13:44) and remain joyful amidst all the disappointment and uncertainty this world brings.

the sojourner

Sometimes, I get the distinct impression that the world doesn't want Christians to be part of it, nor cares about what happens to Christians as a result of this rejection.

As a Christian this shouldn't come as a surprise to me, for Jesus says the world will hate us (Luke 21:17, John 15:19). In one respect, the world's indifference to the suffering of Christians, its positive discrimination against Christians (be it refugees or natives), and it's vitriolic disdain for Christian ethics & morality in the aftermath of the "culture war" is a fulfillment of Jesus' own words and therefore circumstantial evidence of the truth of the Bible. It also means that as a Christian I am given opportunities to love my enemies (Matthew 5:43-44). Indeed, a correct biblical response to society's actions will lead to a greater Christ-like character in the believer as we look to Jesus' example of loving His enemies in the face of false accusations and crucifixion.

So, in one sense I should be grateful to be living in our modern, contemporary world. And yet, observing society's drifting from biblical norms and its recoil at God's sovereign authority over every sphere of human life leads me to wrestle with my place within it. Should I passively embrace the anti-Christian sentiment I see so prevalently nowadays (for reasons stated above) or should I seek to speak the truth - gently and in love - but no less courageously?

I deliberately remained silent on the Orlando shootings as I honestly didn't know what to say that would adequately convey my sincere sympathy for the victims and yet indignation at the media for deliberately putting LGBT lives above those of Christians and others who do not enjoy the privilege of the media's support. I think of the genocide of Christians and other religious minorities in ISIS held territory. I think of the Yazidis who have been taken as sex slaves by ISIS; or the victims of Muslim honour killings across the Islamic world, and the resurgent anti-Semitism in Europe and the West.

Western leaders have no problem declaring themselves to be "Je suis Charlie" in an act of solidarity with freedom of speech, or walks of solidarity with the LGBT community, yet there was never a "Je suis Christian" in support of freedom of religion and the Christians who died as a result of retaliation in the Islamic world for their act of defiance.

As one article I read put it, progressives believe in diversity as long as that diversity doesn't extend to conservatives. And both Britain and America seem to be prejudiced against Christian refugees who are fleeing religious persecution from within the Islamic world as evidenced by a recent BBC article as well as statistics released about the number of Christian to Muslim refugees who are accepted into America.

What does all this amount to? As far as I can see, a sustained anti-Christian inclination and bias within government institutions and the media. The recent exposure of Facebook whose trending feed censored conservative topics in favour of liberal ones is a good example of how intolerance towards anything resembling moral conservatism or evangelical Christianity is slowly influencing the way society thinks of and about religion and Christianity in particular. In the realm of social media this is being compounded by the filter bubble.

Does this mean I want Christians to be given priority in society? No. That is not what I am saying. I am not arguing for greater Christian "rights". This is not a "civil rights" issue. This is not about having a "martyr complex" either. As Christians we are sojourners in this world (1 Peter 2:11, Philippians 3:20). As such we should not love or hold onto the things of this world (1 John 2:15). I understand this intellectually and theologically. Understanding this emotionally is more difficult.

At this juncture I just want to take a few moments to express my feelings about the Orlando massacre. I grieve for the victims of the shootings as everybody, whether LGBT or not, is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). God says explicitly that murder is wrong because mankind is made in the image of God (Genesis 9:6). The murder of homosexuals and others in the "LGBT community" is wrong. I am saddened that there are people living in free countries such as the USA who feel that those freedoms should not be extended to certain groups within it.

I know Christians will continue to be at odds with society. We are walking along two parallel tracks, one heading to eternal life, the other destruction (Matthew 7:13-14). There is not a lot we share in common, except our humanity. And yet, our common humanity will not be enough to protect us from further progressive measures and societal prejudices against traditional Christian values.

So what I really want to say is that I see how the world is changing. I acknowledge the transformation taking place culturally. And while I continue to be a member of this world by virtue of my physical locale, I am living in another kingdom...a heavenly one. You may never agree with my worldview or beliefs, but I will still love you. You may oppose everything I believe in and stand for, but I will still speak the truth in love and so I want you to know it is not personal. If you are a fellow Christian reading this, then perhaps you can relate to what I am saying and in someway this blog has resonated with you? Let us take this sojourn together.

signed,

the sojourner.