Why we need to get back to church as soon as possible

Photo by Wendy van Zyl on Pexels.com

With COVID-19 sweeping across the world, the conventional wisdom has been to stay at home. In the West, governments have banned church. Desperate, people are turning to the internet. As they Zoom ‘fellowship’ and livestream services, what might there be missing?

What does the Bible say about fellowship?

Let me set out three clear Biblical reasons to get ourselves back together physically as soon as possible.

Physical gathering is the pattern set for us

The Biblical pattern of fellowship is exampled in many parts of the scripture. In four places in the Bible, Paul commands “Greet one another with a holy kiss’ (Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26). How do you kiss someone through Zoom?

People met physically together and ate meals together. In 1 Corinthians 11:33, Paul writes ‘So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another…’.

In the first account of early church fellowship, it describes that:

… they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:44-47)

Physical gathering is superior to remote communication

It turns out that the Apostles needed to remotely communicate with their brethren around the world, since they could not be in all places an at all times. In fact, we should be grateful they did, because that is how we got the New Testament. Separated by miles of seas, rivers and mountains, the Apostles often wrote letters, inspired by God for the admonition, instruction and edification of their brethren. However, they did not consider this to be fellowship and they certainly considered face-to-face Service superior. These communications were distinct from local gatherings.

The Bible uses the phrase ‘face to face’ as an expression of being physically with someone. John writes:

Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete. (2 John 1:12)

John knows that the physical company of his brethren will complete his joy in fellowship. Paul wants to see his brethren ‘as we pray most earnestly night and day that we may see you face to face and supply what is lacking in your faith…’ (1 Thessalonians 3:10). Notice, it is through face-to-face fellowship that Paul is able to supply what is ‘lacking’ in the Thessalonians’ faith. Physical gathering is superior to remote communication because it ‘supplies’ faith and ‘completes’ our joy.

So much is missing without being physically gathered. How do elders lay their hands on the sick, when they’re not even physically present? Can you baptise someone through Zoom? You cannot. 

Physical gathering is a command

It turns out, we are commanded to physically gather:

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Hebrews 10:24-25)

The ordinary meaning of the Greek word for ‘assembling of ourselves’ is ‘a gathering together in one place’. In the ancient Greek of the New Testament, this meant one physical place. In other words, being in the same physical location is essential to the Biblical command to fellowship. The internet cannot bring us ‘together in one place’ in the sense of the original Greek.

The Bible commands us to meet together in one physical place. Let us obey.

This means going back to church as soon as possible. To obey this calling during the lockdown, consider

  • meeting with small groups of other Christians in homes (as is legal and appropriate in accordance with your local laws)
  • if you can only meet in twos, do so
  • if you can only leave home for essential purposes, do something essential with a brother or sister in the name of Christ (i.e. go to the supermarket at the same time)
  • maintain the discipline of getting together, going to church.

Failed attack on the Bible

Scientists have long looked at the bacterial flagellar in awe and studied its incredible ability to move bacteria. The flagellar is a complex piece of nanomachinery that moves bacteria to environments favouring the bacteria. It is unsurprising that scientists who hold to a creation worldview have looked upon such machinery in the cell as proving design.

A recent article on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) featured three guest contributors attacking God and Christians who believe the Bible. The purpose of this review is to criticise the views of the guest contributors. It is beyond the scope of this article to criticise the ABC. Any reference to the ABC is a reference to its guest contributors in this article and not the ABC itself. I only mention the ABC to reference the publication of the article.

Strawmen

In the article, the creationist position is misrepresented to such an extent that the authors end up arguing against a position that really no serious scientist believes.  

For one, they claim that scientists who support the Christian worldview think complexity is itself disproves evolution. No creationist who is a scientist that I am aware of believes this.

“Then in the 1980s, creationists heard about the motor and started putting it forward as an example of something too complex to evolve by Darwin’s gradual process of mutation and natural selection.”

This is not what the scientists who support creation argue. They specifically demonstrate that the features of the flagellar nanomotor require design, not simply that it is ‘too complex’ to evolve.  The authors have not bothered to seriously engage with the arguments they seek to refute. They then step back and apply their totally false claim of what the creationists believe more generally. They say

“Ever since Darwin, creationists have argued that some biological systems could not be produced by a gradual process of small mutations, because they would not be functional when only half-complete.”

This is half true, but what is left out makes it a complete strawman. Creationists argue that features in the cell require design and conversely that Darwinism does not provide an adequate explanation of how these functions arose in light of the irreducible complexity. The authors then go on to ‘refute’ this by pointing out that functions of systems can change throughout history, pointing to ‘evidence’ that assumes evolution, which of course is circular.

This failed refutation of a strawman ignores that there are two biological requirements that do not change overtime, for which they must provide some explanation. The two biological requirements are that for evolution to occur, a given population (i.e. bacteria) must survive and reproduce. Darwinism argues that mutations (genetic copying mistakes) occur from one generation to the next, and therefore Darwinism requires that a cell may reproduce. Therefore, the Darwinist must explain how the essential features that allow a cell to survive and reproduce exist before they can do anything else.

Not only does this false refutation not address a real argument, but it also does not do anything to show how the flagellar nanomotor could arise by a series of reproductive copying mistakes (Darwinism).

It’s not science

The word ‘science’ has multiple uses and can refer to knowledge generally. However, in modern times it is conventional to assume that the phrase refers to the scientific method or information arising directly from use of the scientific method.  

The scientific method is an inductive process that requires the scientist to draw probabilistic inferences from repeatable and testable observations. It therefore excludes anything that cannot be repeated or directly observed. It cannot prove anything that is improbable, since it works from mathematical probability.

Darwinism is a theory that seeks to explain how the complexity of life arose. It supposedly occurred in the past and past events are not repeatable. If the theory is true, you would not expect to observe it because it happens so slowly that it cannot be observed meaningfully. Any claimed ‘observations’ have not been examples of Darwinian evolution but only of natural selection and adaptation of the kind that would never turn microbes into microbiologists. It is not observable and the events it claims are not repeatable.  It claims that against the odds (i.e. improbably) lifeless chemicals somehow organised themselves into complex multicellular organisms with feelings, worldviews and meaning. Anything that is improbable is not science.

Science cannot prove that Julius Caesar existed, because his existence is not observable and repeatable at the present time. In the same way, science cannot prove that microbes turned into microbioligists. It’s beyond the realm of science and no amount of scientific experiments can change that fact.

Interestingly, those experiments only prove currently observable facts, which the Darwinist then applies his philosophical assumptions, providing an interpretation that has nothing to do with science.

If a scientist has a view on a matter of philosophy, it does not make the philosophical view ‘science’. Darwinism is just abductive philosophy. The facts that scientists have varying views on the theories of origins, does not make origins theories ‘science’.

No scientific experiment has demonstrated ‘evolution’

The authors claim that they can ‘re-run’ evolution in the lab. This is misleading and incorrect.

Let me show by analogy why this is misleading. Does re-enacting the life of Julius Caesar in a play prove that Julius Caesar existed? No, it just shows a plausible story for a past event, about which we must simply take historical sources at their word. Simulating a theory does not scientifically demonstrate that it occurred. Repeatable observations of something occurring means watching the actual process occur in real time.  

It’s also downright incorrect because no peer review data has ever shown an experiment demonstrating microbes to mankind Darwinism. All they show is small scale adaptation within the genetic allowances, mutations that reshuffle and remove genes that may yield short term benefits, and natural selection itself.

Take antibiotic resistant bacteria as an example. Darwinists will claim that these demonstrate evolution, since the bacteria is gaining ‘resistance’ to the threat of antibiotics. However, this ignores three key points.

First, often resistant bacteria already exist in a population, and when the non-resistant population is eliminated by the antibiotics, only the resistant population is left to reproduce. This is nothing more than natural selection.

Second, the change that occurred was beneficial only in the short term, and in the long term it was detrimental. This ‘resistance’ is usually because the pathways into the cells are damaged or depleted and therefore both toxic antibiotics and life sustaining nutrients cannot enter. This means that bacteria that demonstrates this change is less capable of surviving in ordinary conditions and will not regain the lost ability to take in nutrients.

Third, this does not demonstrate functionally specific complexity in the genome, instead it involves deleterious genetic mutations. Thus, copying mistakes do not increase the information just because they happen to have a benefit. Copying mistakes always involve reduction, removal or reshuffling of the prescriptive information coded in the genome.

Rather than experiments demonstrating evolution they only prove adaptation and natural selection which must be interpreted into a philosophical model by Darwinists based on their assumptions.

Folau did not say people go to hell for being born gay

Does Folau or any other biblical Christian believe people go to hell for being born gay?

No, and let me explain.

While the Bible has long condemned all sin, including, in the example below, homosexual sex, it does not say anyone goes to hell for being tempted, or by being born as someone who is naturally tempted to do an action which is a sin.

In other words, even if a whole class of humans are born with a predisposition towards the same sex, they are not going to hell. Hell isn’t earned by our temptations but by our sinful practices.

So let’s see what the Bible says.

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

For all the other listed classes of sin, only homosexuality is qualified by “practice”. For some reason, 2000 years ago, Scripture was written with extraordinary emphasis on homosexual sin being something you “practice” as apposed to being something that you are.

We live in a fallen world, of course you will be born with temptation: I experience various temptations, too. But God doesn’t punish the tempted, but the practitioner.

Homosexuals are not the only people who experience temptation that the Bible says they must not act on. So to, do strait people who engage in fornication (sex before marriage), adultery (sex outside of marriage), pride, and so forth.

God loves you. Jesus died that you may be forgiven.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 6:23

Israel Folau

Imagine you decided to go on your social media profile and quote your favourite book. This is no ordinary book. This is the world’s best selling book.

Moments later, someone is offended. Your favourite book is apparently not their favourite book. In fact, they want you punished.

Just because your opinions are not liked by others, doesn’t mean you should be punished, right? “Yes, punish” cry the media mob, the most politicised and opinionated of the lot.

“But what about free speech?” You plead. “You don’t need that. You need freedom of press” an editor barks back.

If you think that’s crazy, it gets worse.

In fact, your favourite book is your cannon of faith, Holy Scriptures. This is a book full of the facts that are irrefutable and truths that are the essence of your worldview. This is not just your favourite book; its the most important book in the world, loved by millions and believed by billions.

As crazy as it is, quoting the best selling book of all time got one famous rugby player sacked by a board panicking because, as we all suspect, the sponsor’s CEO was personally offended by the post.

This person who takes offence happens to dislike the part that is about an essential truth on which the gospel is founded. God’s wrath is against sin, and all are sinners. This is the problem the gospel solves, by making atonement for the sins of the whole world by Christ’s death on the cross. All the listed sinners are now able to turn to Jesus to receive the promised salvation.

Wait, how dare you say that! That offends me. Yes, God’s law offends the sinner who disregards it without the gospel.

The truth is that the gospel is offensive to the lost, but it is their only hope. There is no other way by which a person can be saved. God has made one way of escape and that is in Christ Jesus the Lord.

You see, God wrote a book, through many scribes/secretaries, who we call prophets and apostles. It is an infallible and authoritative book. It contains the whole truth of the gospel; God’s means by which each person can know God.

I hope you turn to Jesus.

Dear Israel: we love you

Dear Israel,

We love you. We want you to know that. As the world pours hate on you, your fellow Christians, who know God and love His word, are together with you in the truth.

We know a Hillsong ‘pastor’ wants to give you some ‘advice’ publicly about being more accepting, but he doesn’t speak authoritatively for God. God’s word speaks for God. God’s word is what you said on that post – people’s supposed experience and concert-like popular churches don’t give them more authority than God’s word.

According to the news, this ‘pastor’ thinks the sins that you identified calls out a good many Christians – which may mean he is not thinking about the power of the gospel (“we were once darkness but now we are ligh in Christ Jesus”) or he isn’t thinking about the scripture, “no one born of God continues in sin”.

It’s too bad for Brian Houston that Jesus himself was the first preacher with a ‘turn or burn’ message (eg Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 10:28). He warned of hell, and promised heaven to those who turned as a free gift received by faith and earned by His Grace alone. Jesus thought sin and hell were serious enough to warn about. He also knew that heaven was precious enough to promise.

The media maligning you and Rugby Australia mistreating you is consistent with the kind of mistreatment and malignment Jesus said his disciples would suffer for following him (Matthew 10:25).

As Jesus said in Matthew 5:11-12,

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

We commend to you for your encouragement Hebrews 11:7 and Psalm 27.

With love,
Christians

Who are the Sentinelese? Was Chau right to contact them?

John Chau was killed making contact with an isolated and largely uncontacted tribe of people in the Indian Ocean last week. 

What do we know about the Sentinelese? 

 
Anthropologists  

 
This tribe has been so isolated for hundreds if not thousands of years that we know very little about them. We don’t know what language they speak, though it’s clearly unrelated to the surrounding languages. We don’t know where they came from or how they arrived at the island. We have only a handful of observations.

 
Despite our entire lack of knowledge about the Sentinelese people, “anthropologists” will tell you that they have lived on this island for 60,000 years. Ironic, isn’t it. 

 
Their basis for saying this appears to be the limited technology which has been observed by our few contacts with this people group. For example, it is believed by some that they do not have the technology to produce a fire. They apparently eat meat uncooked and live by fishing, hunting and gathering. This is based on very limited observations. On this basis, Darwinian anthropologists claim that this people group are “pre-neolithic” (pre-cave man), which is basically a very racist thing to say about another people group. 

 
The reality is that technology does not necessarily correspond to biology. Whilst a certain amount of biological complexity is required to allow for technological development, limited technology is still not necessarily caused by limited biology. This is an example of bigotry. 

 
The assumption of the Darwinian anthropologists is that technology always advances (or stagnates) but never regresses. This is completely false. There are plenty of examples of primitive cultures that once retained relatively significant technological advancement, but lost it. 
But for now an illustration will suffice. Imagine a small group of iPhone addicted city dwellers from the West are suddenly left stranded on a lonely little island in the middle of the ocean. They proabably don’t know how to make the clothes on their back let alone start a fire without matches. Suddenly you have a people group who have regressed technologically in a very short period of time (an anthropologist may describe them as pre-neolithic).    

 
The only requirements for such technology loss would be unrecorded technology (say through illiteracy) and a sudden loss of people who carry the generational knowledge (such as through a natural disaster or sudden isolation). 

 
The brutal culture of this people group doesn’t indicate them being ‘primative’ either. This may have simply been because of hostile contact with people passing by ships exploiting a technologically disadvantaged people over the centuries. This is not a defence of their behaviour but a refutation of false thought. 

 
So on the speculation that this people group we know very little about has been allegedly isolated for 60,000 years and is pre-Neolithic (less evolved, that is), anthropologists assert that the Sentilese are not “genetically” immune to the diseases of the of the rest of the world. Note, they think they don’t have the genetic ability that the post-Neolithic world has because they are speculating with little data. Hence they are alleging that the Sentinalese are genetically inferior. 

 
Do the Sentinelese lack the “genetic” immunity to diseases of the rest of the world? 

 
The evidence to support this idea that the Sentinalese lack “genetic” immunity, they claim, is that the surrounding island groups have suffered significant population decline since contact with the outside world was made. However, this ignores two factors. First, European settlement involved a sudden, abrupt and large settlement on the island. The settlement brought convicts and many diseases. And the settlement occurred right next to a mosquito infested swamp resulting in a sudden outbreak of death and disease among both indigenous, Indian and European people groups. Second, their assertion ignores the pressures placed upon those groups by contact with the outside world. Their first contacts were not with missionaries but colonial soldiers. They suffered wars, encroachment on their territory, oppression. But they ignore these factors and pressures and instead use the regional decline in the indigenous population as evidence of their lack of “genetic” immunity. Such wilful ignorance only fan the flames of racism.  

 
Despite having no contact with the outside world, the Sentinelese population appears to be declining. This has been attributed to intermarriage in a small population. John Chau was a healthy young 26 year old, not an entire people group settling the island next to a mosquito infested swamp. The experience on the other islands clearly doesn’t support the genetic vulnerability hypothesis. 

 
It’s really just a racist assumption that brands another people group as “genetically inferior”. 

 
Media

 

One journalist, who spent most of her factually incorrect article insulting John Chau, actually promoted this bigoted idea, saying,

  
“Three of the four groups surveyed have suffered illnesses and deaths after coming into contact with outsiders. Only the Sentinelese – the ones John Chau was so determined to visit – remain untainted.” 

   
How does she know? Although she doesn’t cite any sources, we can already see why this is wrong. Before we contact a people group, we have no information and data about them with which to compare after we contact them.  

  
Also, she says the Sentinelese remained “untainted” but this is false. One of the few observations we have been able to make about them is to roughly count their population. Recent attempts to count their population have shown that they are in steep population decline. It has been speculated that this is a result of their intermarriage within a limited population because of their isolation. Perhaps the answer then is they need to allowed contact with the outside world after all.

  
Suffice to say, the news article author couldn’t even identify who John Chau was out of a photo of two people, called his work “cultural imperialism” and otherwise spouted her ignorance. Cultural imperialism is not trying to share your faith with another culture. Cultural imperialism is deeming another people group to be inferior (ie pre-Neolithic). And trying to “protect” them from contact with the outside world, on the assumption that they ‘can’t handle it’ due them being pre-Neolithic would count as cultural imperialism too. At best it is misguided but benevolent cultural imperialism. 

  
And this is quickly confirmed by the ignorant journalist: 

  
“The Sentinelese are one of the last pre-Neolithic tribes left on the planet, with a lifestyle and culture that has remained unchanged for longer than any in Europe or America.” 

  
But she can’t hide her contempt as she scoffs at Christian missionaries, including the recently dead brother John, and spouts insults. She concludes with: 

  
“Why can’t these zealots accept that some non-believers do not need the words of Jesus or plastic footballs?” 

  
Because, there is no other name under heaven by which a man or woman may be saved, but Jesus. They do need the words of Jesus, just as you do. 

  
Would there be any benefit with missionary contact for the Sentinelese?

 
Hundreds of people groups are thriving today whose first contact with the outside world was through Christian missionaries. 

  
Often during the colonial period, missionaries rallied to defend indigenous people groups from exploitation. When the Xhosa king was killed by British soldiers, the London Missionary Society lobbied the government to hold the soldiers and governor to account. They were partially successful. When USA was expanding into Indian lands, Jonathan Edwards a missionary, advocated for the rights the North American Aboriginals. In the pacific, against Whalers and other exploiters, the missionaries provided a voice to the government and accountability for the islanders. 

 
In terms of education and literacy, the missionaries were the ones who reduced whole languages to writing. This resulted in thousands of languages which may have become extinct because of the pressure of the prevailing Lingua Franca, surviving and experience a revitalisation. Many oral histories were preserved in writing because of missionaries and preserved against the pressures of globalism. 

  
In terms of medicine, often the only medic or doctor in the region was the local missionary, who were often trained doctors. 
Where were anthropologists? Nowhere to be found among most places until the 20th century. They and their racist Darwinism want to keep people they contact out of the technology of the West and the treasury of Christ. Relatively speaking, we know more about the indigenous peoples of the world from the missionaries who lived and died for them, than we do from the anthropologists who simply came to make an academic point for Darwinism. 

 
The anthropologists have long, out of sheer jealously, maligned missionaries. Yet the missionaries have conserved more cultures and protected more peoples than the anthropologists. 

 
Indeed I have experienced the benefits of the missionaries myself. 

 
Conclusion 

 
Anthropologists look at this people group as being less-evolved (pre-neolithic). Missionaries view them as humans made in the image of God. Anthropologists view them as a conservation project, to keep them in their habitats eating raw meat. Missionaries view them as isolated humans and want to offer them the good news, technology and medical advancement. 

 
What is clear is that the Darwinists want to keep their living fossils (their racism not mine) under lock and key, cut off from medicine, technology (even fire) and the gospel. What is clear about the Sentinelise, is they they desperately need the gospel. 

 
So when you hear the media claim that these people lack “genetic” immunity to disease, you’re hearing racist and ignorant assumptions made about a people we actually don’t know all that much about.
By the way, they do use fire. 

 

(Image accessed via Wikipedia.org, it is the property of Medici82, and shared via Creative Commons)

The incredible story of John Allen Chau

John Allen Chau left his home, family and friends to take the Gospel to a people who would likely kill him for making contact with them. In 3 days, he was killed. 

He was 26. 

 
The little known tribe of people, to whom he reached, have so successfully refused all contact with the outside world for centuries, that we don’t know what their language, social structure or way of life is, much less how long they have inhabited their island in the Indian Ocean. 

 
All accounts indicate that John was determined to share with these uncontacted people the gospel. So last week he travelled to their island, offering them gifts to express good will and attempting to sing to them. They shot an arrow at him, striking his Bible. Determined to show good will to gain their trust for the gospel’s sake, he returned the next day. This time he was shot with arrows, surviving he swam back to the fishing vessel he had commissioned. He wrote on the boat of his determination to share the gospel with them if it cost him his life. On the third day, knowing it may be his last he again returned to the island. The next day the fishermen could see he had been killed. 

He did not waste his life in comfort; he spent it to advance the gospel. He may not have had a chance to communicate the gospel in their language, or even translate their unknown language, but he furthered contact with this little known group of people for the sake of the gospel. 

 
His gifts, his kindness and his peacefulness in death may be used to bring conviction and reflection on these people. Perhaps next time, they will respond to the relationship and in time to the gospel. 
John poured out his life to the glory of God. 

 
No spear, no arrow, no gun can stop the steady advance of the gospel of peace. Love your enemies, Jesus commands, and preach the gospel in all the earth.  

Jesus is the Way to True Happiness

Proverbs 15:16-17    Better is a little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble with it.   Better is a dinner of herbs where love is than a fattened ox and hatred with it.

These two proverbs speak to the same thing. The incomparable worth of the fear of the LORD and love surpass great treasure and good food. Implicit in the reference is that trouble comes from a failure to fear The Lord. In the same way, it’s better to eat a meal of vegetables shared with someone who loves you, than to eat good food with someone who hates you. So why is the fear of God so important?

 
Elsewhere the proverb says “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Pro9:10) “for wisdom is better than jewels, and all that you may desire cannot compare with her.” (Pro8:11) Wisdom is a most valuable thing, but what is it exactly? Wisdom has been called right living. The following proverb forms a parallel structure where one thing is repeated twice using two different wordings to draw out its full meanings. “I have taught you the way of wisdom; I have led you in the paths of uprightness.” (Pro 4:11). The “way of wisdom” is the “paths of righteousness”. Wisdom speaks saying “  I walk in the way of righteousness, in the paths of justice, granting an inheritance to those who love me, and filling their treasuries.” (Proverbs 8:20-21) 

 
So how do we get this righteousness? No one is righteous (Romans 3:10). This means that none naturally can approach God. The reason is simple, we have all disobeyed God’s law (Romans 3:23). We cannot get righteousness after being unrighteous by now doing the law, because later good deeds don’t undo past bad deeds. The way to get righteousness is made available as a generous free gift with eternal life (Romans 6:23). By Jesus’ death on the cross, God demonstrates his love towards us (Romans 5:10). You can receive it today. Consider the following verse and find out more here

 
Romans 5:18-19   “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.    For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

 

Romans 8:3-4   “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

 

 

 


Chibok School Girls: Today 4 Years of Kidnap

Today is 4 years since 276 school girls were kindnapped at gunpoint by a terroist group call Boko Haram. Boko Haram hate Western education, but targeted their school because it was in a predominantly Christian district. 

Today 112 remain captives. They are subject to an ISIS style brutality. Christians we must pray for them. 

Evidence indicates that they are undergong brutality on a daily basis. 
The others were released, ‘married’ off, or killed. 

Pray!

Dear Israel Folau: love warns

Dear Israel, 

Please accept my encouragement, as one believer to another. 
You have found yourself surrounded by controversy and name calling. The fact that you are called ‘bigot’ doesn’t make you one. 

In a time when ‘tolerance’ means affirming and agreeing rather than tolerating, it is important to remember that love warns. If danger is coming, it would be unloving to affirm the course of danger. True love warns. 

In an age when people’s opinions are changing with the times. Truth is fact and is not an opinion. Truth does not change with the sands of time. Truth is timeless. The views of time are fast changing and we are accused of being out of touch with the times. What matters is that we stand for timeless truth, not that we move with the ever changing ideas of a truth ignoring generation. 

As people are name called and shamed into silence, your voice is a blessing. Anti-Christian activists want to normalise church silence – so speaking out renormalises a church with a voice. It was silence (though not yours) that gave the November plebiscite its victory. The media was mostly silent in reporting any alternative to ‘yes’. The conservative politicians stuck to ‘religious freedom’ rather than the true merit of no. 

What we need is a voice warning in love. A voice in the wilderness of silence; prepare the way of the Lord. 

With much love and many blessings in Christ, 

Romans Road