Grace and Right Living

It is by grace we are saved, though faith, the gift of God. Well known words from Ephesians that echo Paul's letter to the Romans where he clearly defines God's saving ways that work apart from the Law.

Yet everyone has their codes and standards of behaviour, and Christians are typically high up on the league table of having expectations on how people should or shouldn't behave.

The problem is that even if our code is reasonable or correct, we typically incorrectly translate it to our relationships with people who do not know Christ, and this messes up our witness and evangelism. In the worst case it effectively reverts us back to salvation by Law.

In simplistic bullet items, here are some suggested lines I use to make sense of the 'grace versus license-to-anything' tension, and to keep things on the grace-only track:

• Non-Christians cannot be expected to know how to live rightly - why would they?
• we can appeal for better in the wider society and we can encourage individuals to live better, but we should not be surprised if they don't (or can't) 'measure up'
• Because salvation is not by law, changing their behaviour (even if they can) is not the way for them to be saved - that is by grace alone (an encounter with Jesus)
• In someone coming to Christ (discovering grace) we can start to work pastorally with them to help them see the incongruity of continuing to live their old ways
• encourage people to see that now we are in Christ "we don't want to do that kind of thing any more"
• realise too that the Holy Spirit takes people on a journey, different people at different speeds
• Since a church is a body of Christ-followers which is visible in the wider society, they will want to strive for certain standards for themselves (taken as a whole) in order to avoid undermining their witness and standing in the community
• but they need to be careful of simply projecting those standards as an organisation onto others
• Leaders of the church are in positions of influence and also likely to represent the public face of the church. It is therefore right to expect them to meet even higher standards.

The Genuine Community Test Factor

Doubtless anyone evaluating a mission initiative in the UK would want to look at the fruit. To have that as a test is no surprise. Another typical test would be numeric - the number of people reached. Of course one can then argue about quality versus quantity, which is really re-considering the fruit aspect once again.

But I am seriously considering adding another test factor: that of genuine community. This would look at the sense of community among the people undertaking the mission. Do they support each other, do they disciple one another, and do they invest in a shared spirituality with each other? Does this give something stronger than any one individual, no matter how important or influential that individual is to the work? Is the strength of the initiative traceable back to the resilience of this community rather than relying on institutional structures?

I wish to tread carefully here because countless people do great gospel work, quite often as an individual or as a small team together with a periphery of supporters. Their work may be fantastic, and for the Kingdom, yet might fail the test I envisage!

In calling people to follow himself, Jesus enjoined people into a community. There would be discipling, shared learning, and assignments. Add to that our UK context, where we know that there is a longing among many for genuine community, since community spirit is not completely dead but often severely eroded. Furthermore we know the support and resilience that genuine community can give. All these suggest to me that we should look at genuine community as a key ingredient in our endeavours.

Hence the health of an initiative, and a clue to its ability to persist through thick and thin, would be aided by including genuine community as a test factor.

Citizens of the Kingdom of God

It's time to remind ourselves that as Christ-followers we are first & foremost citizens of heaven - effectively foreigners even in our own native country (1 Peter 2:11). The EU referendum will have pleased some and shocked others. Rather than being thrown into turmoil, let us remember where we really reside.

Governments will come & go, as will powers and super-powers, but the Kingdom will prevail. You may worry for the future for you and your children. You may be concerned for the nation, even for the continent. All this is natural and legitimate. Yet remember that ultimately your security is elsewhere.

This confidence should permeate our witness. As people debate, worry or hope, let us quietly communicate our deeper and greater hope. And when people enquire the reason, be ready to give our answer (1 Peter 3:15) which will likely run along these lines: Jesus is Lord, his Kingdom is not of this world, I have discovered this Kingdom (and discovering it more and more as I live my life), and you can discover it too.

A Slow Journey to God's Kingdom Purposes

Each time I read the story of David it sinks in just a bit more how David was able to exercise Godly patience when it comes to his role as king, and the Kingdom that God would establish. David, it seems, was able to leave the eventual security of the Kingdom of God in God's hands, rather than forcing it through himself.

David is anointed back in 1 Samuel 16 while Saul is still king. David serves Saul but it becomes increasingly obvious that David will succeed him. David never rushes this, and allows Saul to continue on two occasions rather than seizing power through opportunity.

Eventually Saul is killed in a battle, but even then David proceeds cautiously. In 2 Samuel 2 he enquires of God for directions, which leads to his initial crowning. There is a rival camp loyal to Saul's descendants though, and while they scrap it seems that David is pretty much able to leave them be. Surely he could have just pressed ahead and squashed this opposition? Yet he bides his time, over 6 years in fact.

Finally he becomes king over all the tribes, and presses on to establish Jerusalem as the worship centre for the new Kingdom. Yet even after all that, when Absalom rebels in chapter 15 David vacates his seat of power surprisingly quickly, leaving the city for Absalom to simply march in. It seems that not only was David no stranger to opposition, but he could allow it to run its course. He knew the Kingdom was not something to be grasped, not something to be rushed or pressed, but to trust in the bigger picture of God's purposes.

Even in David's desire to build a temple as a permanent centre of worship this same principle is played out. God tells David that this task is not for him, but along with it God gives an amazing promise of 'the throne of his kingdom for ever'. Clearly such a promise cannot be forcibly fulfilled by any action of man - David was able to embrace that principle above all.

It makes me think of all the plans in my mind that I believe will contribute to the Kingdom of God. Am I able to exercise the same patience, to bide my time, to allow opposition to run its course ... and trust that along the journey, no matter how slowly it seems to progress, God will indeed work His purposes out?