I gaze across to my daughters’ bookcase standing next to my desk. One book catches my eye: My Illustrated Prayer Book.1 The cover says it is for young readers, aged 4–6 years. As I leaf through the pages, I quickly realised why these words were familiar to me: this book was an illustrated edition of The Holy Communion Second Order liturgy from A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA).2

In a sense, this children’s book represents a perplexing paradox: on the one hand, that the eucharistic liturgy was chosen for a children’s book communicates that for a 4–6 year old child, their fullest experience of worship is centred around the word and the table. Yet on the other hand, the same tradition holds that participation in the Lord’s Supper is only for those ‘who have been baptised and confirmed’, a status typically occurring when they are much older.3 The Lord’s Supper appears to be simultaneously for and not for children.

How are we to navigate this ecclesiastical dilemma? The appropriate recipients of the Lord’s Supper has been a well-known point of disagreement amongst sincere Christians and denominations over centuries, with many assuming ‘a minimum age’ of admittance.4 This essay seeks to navigate the issue of how we ought to determine eligibility for the Lord’s Supper. To what degree is participation in the Supper determined by someone’s theological understanding of the sacrament? The focus for this essay is how that question applies to children.

The structure of this paper follows the five sequential categories helpfully laid out by Wood, who recommends that discussions around children and the Lord’s Supper must consider: ‘biblical, historical, theological, pastoral and pragmatic’ categories.5 Within each category, several considerations and challenges are addressed, with the aim of providing a multifaceted, cumulative response to ascertain what degree a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper determines their involvement in the sacrament vis-à-vis other factors.

As will become evident throughout this essay, on balance of all these categories, I will argue that a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper does not determine their involvement in the sacrament.6 Rather, I hold that a child’s eligibility rests upon three central principles:

1. Their ability to meet the scriptural requirements for participation in the Lord’s Supper;

2. Their genuine faith and maturity, appropriate to their age and development; and

3. Their communicant membership granted in their baptism.

Therefore, for children who meet these prerequisites, participation in the Lord’s Supper is not only permissible, but advantageous. Such admission to the Lord’s Supper will not only serve to benefit the individual and wider corporate body, it also provides the optimal setting for a child’s theological understanding of the sacrament to be bolstered. I will conclude our discussion by proposing a practical way in which this position could manifest itself within my own ecclesiastical context of an Anglican church service.7

As this is a long essay, here is an outline of the discussion, and main headings can be skipped to:

A. BIBLICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

i. Old Testament Considerations

Children and old covenant membership

Children and the Passover

ii. New Testament Considerations

Meals in the Gospels and Acts

The Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11

B. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

i. Patristic Period

ii. Reformation Developments

C. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

i. Children and the Church

The great paradox

Children, maturity, and theological understanding

ii. Children and the Lord’s Supper

Eligibility for the Lord’s Supper: baptism or confirmation?

The manifold benefits of the Lord’s Supper

D. PASTORAL IMPLICATIONS

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX: PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Applied through Anglican context

Before we commence, a few preliminary notes on terminology and assumptions are necessary. First, please note that my own terminology will favour the Lord’s Supper, and for terseness, I will also adopt the terminology of ‘paedocommunion’ when referring to the view that children are to be welcomed to the Lord’s Supper. Second, this discussion assumes the theological legitimacy of paedobaptism and will be argued from this perspective.8 Here’s an essay I have written which explores paedobaptism.

A. BIBLICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

We must first observe how biblical passages and themes contribute to our view of eligibility of children to the Lord’s Supper. While this section is not exhaustive—additional passages are considered in other sections—there are several passages and themes crucial to our discussion. We will first consider from the Old Testament: Eligibility for old covenant membership; and the ways the Passover feast informs our discussion. Second, we will study biblical contributions from the New Testament: The Gospels and Acts; and a detailed study of 1 Corinthians 11.

While it must be acknowledged from the outset that Scripture doesn’t provide a precise situation which addresses paedocommunion, Keidel is confident (as am I) that a positive argument can be mounted on the basis of biblical truths.9 Consequently, from these passages and themes, I believe we can conclude: children were objectively admitted to the people of God as full members through circumcision; their participation in the Passover preceded cognitive understanding of it; the eucharistic ‘breaking of bread’ celebrated in Acts appears to follow the pattern of inclusiveness characterised by Jesus’ table fellowship; and finally, that Paul’s prerequisites for worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 are not tantamount to theological understanding of the sacrament. Therefore, we can conclude from the biblical evidence, that a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper does not determine their involvement in the sacrament.

i. Old Testament Considerations

Children and old covenant membership

It is advantageous to commence our discussion by studying the eligibility of children into the old covenant, since ‘the new covenant is the eschatological fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant’ (cf. Acts 13:32–33).10 What was the status of children in the old covenant? And did theological understanding determine their inclusion within covenant family?

Genesis 17:1–21 provides a valuable insight, since God’s promise and covenant with Abraham clearly included both adults and their infant offspring (17:9). On this pericope, Murray helpfully summarises that ‘the church under the Old Testament included not only all who were of sufficient age and intelligence to confess the true religion but also their infant seed’.11 Circumcision was commanded as the objective sign of covenant membership (17:11).12 Keidel is quick to note that whilst eligibility for circumcision for Adults and foreigners required a certain level of ‘self-examination and spiritual discernment’ (cf. Genesis 34:15; Exodus 12:48–49; Deuteronomy 10:16), ‘[i]nfants and children, nevertheless, who were incapable of such spiritual understanding and commitment, were circumcised as members of God's covenant.’13

To reconcile this apparent double-standard, Keidel argues that God evidently held a high view of the ‘solidarity of the family’, in which the sincere faith of believing parents provided the eligibility for infant membership in the covenant.14 And since ‘the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfilment of the covenant made with Abraham’, it is no surprise that this corporate principle continues in the new covenant, with Paul making the claim that children benefit from their parent’s conversion and faith and are to be embraced as full members of the faith community (1 Corinthians 7:14).15

Children in the old covenant—apart from their own subjective theological understanding—were fully incorporated in the covenant family. Unless we are willing to accept that the new covenant is somehow less generous and less effective than the old, we must approach our deliberation of children’s eligibility to the Lord’s Supper as members of the church from this backdrop.16 Further, since most Christians hold that what was true of circumcision under the old covenant is analogous to the rite of baptism in the new (Colossians 2:11–12), then we are led to conclude that children baptised as infants are to be afforded at least the same status within the church community as circumcised children were in Israel.17

Children and the Passover

Our second area of consideration is how we are to understand children’s participation in the Passover feast, regarded as Israel’s most theologically central meal.18 Our conclusions reached here are germane to the larger discussion, since virtually all scholars hold that there is some relationship or analogy between the Passover, the Last Supper, and the Lord’s Supper.19

By way of summary, the mandate of Exodus 12:43–49 presents circumcision as the sole determination of eligibility: ‘It is circumcision that constitutes the external demonstration of acceptance into the covenant community and therefore circumcision that qualifies one and one’s family to partake of the Passover meal’, as Stuart concludes.20 In other words, all circumcised infants and children were theoretically ‘communicant members’ by virtue of their circumcision alone, apart from their theological understanding of the meal.21

It is true that Exodus 12:26–27 does imply a certain age at which children should inquire as to discern the theological meaning of the rite. And Calvin’s logic is that this command provides clear impetus for this age to be the criterion for admittance into the observance. By extrapolation: only children who are intellectually able to exercise similar ‘discernment’ of the body should be allowed to partake in the Lord’s Supper.22 Keidel, however believes this is a false step in reasoning, since the ability for some to inquire ought not necessitate that all must.23

In summary, it is challenging to know the extent we should apply these findings onto admitting children to the Lord’s Supper, since we are working by analogy. We can, however, affirm that circumcised persons were ipso facto eligible participants, which stands apart from theological understanding.

ii. New Testament Considerations

Meals in the Gospels and Acts

The Gospels routinely present Christ’s table fellowship as being profoundly inclusive—an approach inviting vehement protest on several occasions (Matthew 9:10–13; Luke 15:1–2).24 From this backdrop, Peterson rightly argues that we should then understand the Last Supper as Jesus’ climax to a series of meals, characterised by their inclusiveness.25

Flowing from the Last Supper, Luke-Acts presents multiple instances where the ‘breaking of bread’ (τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου) occurred (Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7); the phrase carrying clear ‘eucharistic undertones’, though there is debate in this area.26 Regardless, we cannot deny that the first reference to this practice in the early church (2:42) was immediately preceded by Peter’s proclamation of the kingdom promise being for both adults and children (2:39, cf. Joel 2:28–29), itself suggesting a motif of fulfilment of the inclusive Abrahamic covenant (cf. Genesis 17:9–10).27

In summary, from the Gospels and Acts, since we have no evidence telling us otherwise, I believe we can reasonably claim that the eucharistic ‘breaking of bread’ celebrated in Acts appears to adhere to the pattern of inclusiveness characterised by Jesus’ table fellowship. Children, therefore, were in principle to be welcomed at the Lord’s Supper, not on the basis of theological understanding, but upon their legitimate covenant membership within the body of Christ.

The Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11

We now arrive at what is arguably the most direct and challenging pericope for the paedocommunion position, since Paul’s teaching appears to exclude all those from the table who cannot reasonably examine themselves and discern the meaning of it. As we will see, I believe a strong argument can be made that Paul’s prerequisites for worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper are not tantamount to theological understanding of the sacrament, and further, that young children can meet these requirements.

We have already established in principle that a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper is not the criterion determining their involvement in the sacrament. However, this position needs to adequately address Paul’s three directives (1 Corinthians 11:28–29, 33) which are seen as mandatory for believers to perform before they qualify to eat and drink in a worthy manner:

(1) 11:28: ‘A person must examine themself’ (δοκιμαζέτω ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν);

(2) 11:29: ensure they do not eat or drink ‘without carefully discerning the body’ (μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα); and,

(3) 11:33: in ‘coming together in order to eat, you must all eat together’ (συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε).28

These verses have been typically regarded as providing ‘scriptural warrant for the need for a profession of faith before admission to communion in the church today.’29 Keidel observes that since it is assumed that ‘infants and children are not able either to examine themselves or to discern the Lord's body, they should not, therefore, be allowed to eat the Lord's Supper.’30 Winzer’s interpretation affirms this: ‘The communicant was to have a cognitive understanding of what the elements represented.’31 John Chrysostom is an early witness which upholds this position of intellectual discernment.32 Murray contends that ‘the very things signified by the Lord's supper involve intelligent understanding on the part of the participant’, as do Langdon, Beckwith and Daunton-Fear.33 The Anglican Prayer Book similarly makes a direct connection between Paul’s exhortations here and cognitive confession of sin.34 If this general position is correct, then the argument for paedocommunion is severely undermined.35

We must, therefore, determine what is meant by Paul’s directives in their original context. And as we will see, these verses ‘cannot bear the weight of this line of thinking’ that a certain theological understanding of the sacrament is required for participation.36 Rather, what is in view for Paul is far more horizontal and relates to the unity of believers. I will argue this both textually and contextually.

First, from a textual perspective, a clarification regarding 11:29 is crucial. Some translations (NIV, KJV) unhelpfully add a possessive genitive to the end of ‘discerning the body… of Christ/the Lord’, which was not present in the Greek texts.37 Conceivably, Paul could be avoiding a pedantic tautology from 11:27, however it is probable that Paul’s usage of σῶμα in 11:29 is distinct from σώματος… τοῦ κυρίου in 11:27.38 Fortunately, there is strong evidence within the epistle which proves Paul’s usage of σῶμα is invested with different meaning depending on the immediate context (cf. 10:16, 17).39 Given that Paul develops the concept of the Corinthian believers being ‘the body’ both before our passage (10:17) and following it (12:12–27), bolsters the interpretation that σῶμα in 11:29 relates to the community of believers.40

Second, from a contextual perspective, there is a growing consensus that ‘the whole discourse in 1 Corinthians speaks of the body not only as the sacramental body of Christ, but also as the corporate body of Christ: the church.’41 Philip’s extensive study into the wider Greco-Roman meal traditions supports this view, holding that we should understand Paul’s exhortations in chapter 11, not in terms of recalling a sacramental theology of the elements, but that all participants ‘should partake as one body of Christ… [and] simply examine their behaviour and respect their fellow believers who are their equals in Christ’.42

Given the issues covered throughout the epistle, Paul’s directives here combat the Corinthian problem of ‘divisions and sins in the church, which is Christ's body’.43 The context makes clear that ‘discerning the body’ must mean a recognition of fellow brothers and sisters as the united body, providing impetus to treat them as such. Similarly, the exhortation to ‘examine yourself’ ought not only relate to an individualistic confession of personal sins, but rather a sincere examination of how well/poorly a member of the body has related to the other members as people ‘for whom Christ chose to give up his life and to shed his blood.’44 Thus, as Jordan helpfully concludes: ‘the problem is moral, not intellectual… there is nothing in this passage to justify the notion that children must not be admitted to the Lord’s Table until they are “old enough to understand.”’45 Therefore, after a detailed study of this passage, we can confidently maintain that theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper itself does not determine involvement.

Regardless, given this passage does set out clear requirements for participation in the sacrament, our crucial question now becomes: Is this form of examination and discernment within the capacity of a child to perform? Wood certainly believes it is, as do I, stating that if ‘‘discerning the body’ refers to being in proper fellowship with other Christians, many children would seem to qualify.’46 1 Corinthians 11 essentially states eligibility for participation in the Lord’s Supper requires the recognition of a person’s own harmony with the remainder of the body—how lovingly they have related to their fellow Christians. Surely children, even more than many adults, are able to perform this level of discernment and peace-making!47 If we are prepared to view children as part of the united body of Christ through their baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13), ‘why should they not also receive that which signifies nourishment in Christ?’48

Having studied passages and themes in both the Old and New Testament, I believe we can conclude this section by affirming that from the biblical evidence, a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper does not determine their involvement in the sacrament. Additionally, as circumcision granted covenant membership, we can state that a child’s full inclusion within the covenant family is objective, granted by their baptism. Membership of the of the body of Christ necessarily means in-principle communicant status at the Lord’s Supper, as it did the Passover. And finally, Paul’s further conditions for participation in the Lord’s Supper do not relate to a cognitive understanding of the sacrament, instead, calling for a level of unity and harmony that is within the capacity of most children to perform.

B. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

We have established that Scripture supports the view that children are eligible participants of the Lord’s Supper, apart from theological understanding of the sacrament. While I concede that there is certainly value in seeing how the theme of paedocommunion was broached across church history, from the outset, we must state that the contribution of history to our understanding of children and the Lord’s Supper is rather tenuous.

The reason for this conclusion is due to all presentations of the historical data being inevitably compiled by commentators who, compelled by their own bias, will interpret the data to confirm their own default position towards paedocommunion. And so, Keidel can confidently claim on one hand, that, based on the evidence, ‘infant observance of the Lord's Supper was widespread in the early church’.49 With Winzer on the other, claiming that that is ‘not one piece of evidence, amidst the voluminous writings of the fathers, to suggest that infants participated in the church’s celebration of the Lord’s supper.’50 It therefore remains difficult to speak with certainty around what was the normative practice when the bun fight between scholars has them arguing over somewhat circumstantial historical evidence.

i. Patristic Period

As just stated, scholars who argue in favour of paedocommunion will generally claim that the practice was normative in the early church until the late-medieval period. Keidel, Jordan, Lee, Sutton, Buchanan and Gallant each survey select sources from the early church to bolster their claim.51 Perhaps the two most significant sources to note are Cyprian and Augustine.52

Cyprian’s treatise On the Lapsed contains the ‘first indubitable witness to infant communion’, where he recalls a rather harrowing experience where a deacon forces eucharistic wine into an infant girl.53 Augustine’s homily on 1 Timothy 1:15 is also routinely cited, where he makes the case that Christ is saviour for all who believe, including infants.54 While it’s hard to deny Augustine’s posture of openness to paedocommunion, Winzer is critical of how much can be gleaned from this writing.55

So was paedocommunion normative in the early church? It remains hard to know for sure. At the very least, we must acknowledge that the notion of admitting young children to the Lord’s Supper is not a ‘novel’ concept, arising in recent history.56

ii. Reformation Developments

Developments over the Reformation period purportedly led to the deprivation of the Lord’s Supper to children. Keidel notes that as the doctrine of transubstantiation emerged in the medieval church, a ‘fear that infants and children might spill the wine and thereby profane the actual body and blood of the Lord appears to have been the primary reason for this discontinuance.’57 It is then suggested that since the Reformation entailed a re-forming of understanding the faith, the logical conclusion meant that participation in the Lord’s Supper required catechism and understanding, lest sacramental superstition persist.58 Consequently, ‘when the cup actually was restored to the laity, the Lord's Supper continued to be kept from infants and children.’59

Luther’s view on paedocommunion proves to be elusive, though the practice was arguably consistent with his theology.60 Calvin’s position was much clearer and his disapproval centred around a child’s ability to theologically discern the body and blood of the Lord—a common mis-interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.61

The Church of England consequently developed these ideals into a formal process of catechesis and confirmation (BCP1559), holding that a certain theological understanding determines participation in the Lord’s Supper.62 Over time this strictness loosened, with the BCP1662 revision provided some more nuance to the question of eligibility.63 Further, in 1985, the Anglican Church issued a canon permitting baptised children admission to Holy Communion prior to confirmation.64

In summary, we can see that history certainly provides some benefit to our discussion. However, the relative silence of patristic evidence means we are forced into the realm of conjecture to argue from silence, where we either assume paedocommunion was the norm, or we assume it was inconceivable.

C. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

In this section we will consider our issue more systematically, attempting to draw together what was affirmed from our biblical studies as it applies to larger discussions around children, the church and sacraments. Given the ongoing validity of the claim that theological understanding does not determine involvement in the Lord’s Supper, in this third section we must further establish in what sense children may be incorporated into the faith of the church and on what grounds communicant membership is theologically able to be granted to children. We will also conclude that the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper itself provides manifold benefits to children and adults alike, leading us to the stance that children ought to be admitted to the sacrament.

i. Children and the Church

We have already considered the objective inclusion of children within the Old Testament people of God, a motif which theologically carries into the new covenant. However, we must draw together a more complete systematic understanding of children, and how we are to see them in relation to the kingdom, the visible church, and consequently, the Lord’s Supper.

The great paradox

One of the great theological paradoxes exists around the theological view of the children of Christian parents. Depending on one’s biblical principles and emphases, children should either be regarded: (1) objectively and collectively as covenant members growing up within the people of God; or (2) subjectively and individually as fallen sinners individually called to repent and believe. The paradox exists, of course, because the Bible teaches both. Arriving at a satisfactory response to this dilemma is crucial to our wider discussion around paedocommunion, since there are problems that arise when children are understood in either of these extremes. An exceedingly objective position opens the floodgates for children couch-surfing on the waves of ‘folk Christianity’.65 Conversely, an purely subjective approach creates undue pressure on a child’s single ‘conversion moment’ of personal repentance and faith, which rarely describes the experience of someone growing up in a Christian home.66

First, we must uphold the significant place children hold in God’s mind: He calls and speaks to children (1 Samuel 3; Jeremiah 1:4–8); his name is established through the praise of children and infants (Psalm 8:2); he is pleased to reveal divine secrets to infants and not the wise (Matthew 11:25–26); and Christ’s teaching holds that ‘children are the measure’ of his kingdom and are not to be hindered from coming to him (Matthew 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).67 Calvin’s logic excellently shows the inevitable conclusion of Christ’s teaching:

If the kingdom of heaven is theirs… [h]ow unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits.68

Second, we must additionally take into account the debilitating effects of the fall, rendering everyone under the power of sin inherited from Adam (Romans 3:9–18, 23; 5:12, 18–19; cf. Psalm 51:5).69 The implication is that everyone, including children, tragically begin life outside the kingdom, requiring personal repentance and faith in Christ before that status is changed (John 3:36; Acts 2:28; 17:30). Notwithstanding this, I can’t imagine sincere Christian parents would generally relate to their young children with this level of wrath-deserving scepticism: ‘Children are pagans at worst and potential Christians at best’—as Bird aptly quips.70

Can this paradox be reconciled? How do we account for both ‘belongingness’ and ‘sinfulness’? Buckland promotes a remarkable model for conceiving how both the objective and subjective aspects of children’s soteriology may be brought together—though we do not space to expound the full model here.71 The view essentially holds that within the influence of others, a child’s faith grows as they make movements towards Christ. At some moment or period—often known only to God—a person commences a completely new and irreversible status and relationship with Christ.72 I believe this model excels in explaining the experience of many believers who grew up in Christian homes, who (like me) may not recall a precise moment of ‘conversion’, but can recall many formative steps and decisions towards Christ.73 Buckland masterfully expresses the immense pastoral benefit of this approach:

People don't just drift into a saving relationship with God in Christ. It involves decision, but it may, probably does, involve a number of decisions. And we want to affirm every one of them.74

Children, maturity, and theological understanding

We have already established that Paul’s conditions for participation in the Lord’s Supper do not require an intellectual understanding of the sacrament, instead, calling for a solemn pursuit of unity and harmony within the body (1 Corinthians 11:28–33). And I believe that young children can meet these requirements, provided our expectations are proportional to their development and maturity.75

Nye cautions adults against expecting children to respond in adult categories, particularly since children ‘can be very sensitive to the social demands of communication—what they think we want them to say.’76 Because of this, candid conversations ‘in the car, the bath, at bedtime or just when you are least prepared for them, are often much more important’ than a Q&A kid’s talk at church.77

Developmental psychology reveals the remarkable way in which children imitate and reflect their parents’ faith and practices.78 Children follow the pattern set by their parents. ‘Let us tell our children that Christ comes to them every week in the Eucharist, and they are to receive him. No small child has any trouble with this. They naturally keep their parent’s faith.’79

As children grow and mature, ‘they will gradually exercise more and more discerning faith’, and the way this will be expressed will need to mature with the child.80 Andersen et al. helpfully identify that God’s instructions to children are remarkably consistent: Honour and obey your parents (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; Ephesians 6:1–3; Colossians 3:20): ‘the effect of this commandment is that personal growth of the child towards loving God and neighbour is growth achieved predominantly through relationship with parents or caregivers.’81 And so, Jordan helpfully applies this logic for us: ‘“Discerning the body” for the child may be translated as “obey your parents.”’82 As a child becomes more capable of forming and reflecting on inter-personal relationships with other adults and children in their congregation, the imperative to ‘discern the body’ gradually becomes much more in line with an adult’s expectation.

It is also reasonable to expect that a child’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper will grow as the child matures.83 Therefore, how we communicate the meaning of the Supper will invariably evolve proportionate to a child’s realistic comprehension of it. Langdon, a firm critic of paedocommunion, is indignant toward any inclination to liturgically condescend to children in explaining the Supper:

A child is quite capable of responding to the idea that Jesus invites us to a party, that we can share a meal with him, and that he shows us his love by giving us special food to eat. But our liturgy, and our theology, require more than this.84

In response, we must affirm: ‘While indeed the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is infinitely profound, yet on a fundamental level it is as simple as “dinner with Jesus.”’85 An incomplete understanding is not necessarily an incorrect one. Furthermore, it is impossible to conceive that all adults in any given congregation hold an expansive sacramental theology of the Lord’s Supper, and yet remain communicant.

On this point, Webber makes a substantial claim that for Christian formation, the early church ‘waited to explain the Eucharist until after baptism [and participation in the Eucharist] because they were committed to the principle that experience precedes understanding.’86 This principle and practice provides further support for our claim that participation in the Lord’s Supper is not determined by theological understanding. Nevertheless, pertaining to our discussion at this point, Webber’s example provides scope for holding that a child’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper is best grown from the perspective of participant, not observant. In other words, being a communicant member of the body of Christ provides the optimal environment for any believer (whether adult or child) to grow in their understanding of the sacrament. Note that my position is not suggesting that theological understanding should not be sought, nor that it is irrelevant; rather that its growth is most nurtured and facilitated when the individual does so as a participant. Bieritz makes the same claim: ‘The starting point for eucharistic instruction must be the celebration of the Lord's supper itself, indeed such instruction begins to be a reality in this direct participation in the celebration itself.’87

ii. Children and the Lord’s Supper

Having established that children may be viewed as full members within the body of Christ, what remains in this section is to briefly consider on what grounds communicant membership is theologically able to be granted to children. We will then quickly note the ways in which the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper itself provides impetus to admit children and adults alike.

Eligibility for the Lord’s Supper: baptism or confirmation?

Some paedobaptist ecclesiologies will promote confirmation as the rite which confers an objective criterion of ‘readiness’ for communicant membership.88 The assumption is that since Scripture ties baptism to repentance, faith, and the Holy Spirit, ‘[i]nfants lacked this and their initiation was therefore incomplete.’89 In one sense, such a desire is warranted since paedobaptism is always administered with the expectation that the candidate will make their own personal response to God in the future, thereby permitting them to the Lord’s Supper.90

However, as already discussed, the assumption that young children are not able to profess any genuine repentance and faith, cannot stand.91 Nevertheless, there is no biblical evidence demanding an additional profession of faith to elicit eligibility to the table anyway.92 Further, there is an increasing consensus that such a discontinuity between the two sacraments is a systematic error. Sutton rightly holds that ‘it is biblically inconsistent to give a child sacramental union with Jesus, while withdrawing the perpetuation of that union through eating Jesus' meal… Denial of the table to children and infants violates one of those essential elements’ of continuity.93

One sacrament therefore necessitates access to the other. Baptism has always been recognised as the sign of membership in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). Members of the body of Christ are invariably communicant members. ‘How can one accept [children] into the household of faith through baptism and then exclude them from the Eucharist as you would a pagan or an apostate?’94 I appreciate Malloy’s pithy summary: ‘In baptism, the members are initiated into an equality that transcends age... If our prayer is to be truly common, it must fully integrate children.’95

The manifold benefits of the Lord’s Supper

In addition to the benefits mentioned prior, the manifold benefits of the Lord’s Supper itself provides impetus to admit children and adults alike to receive its bounty. The Lord’s Supper ‘is primarily a meal in which the self-gift of God in Christ is remembered, celebrated, and proclaimed until Christ comes in glory.’96 Williams affirms the spiritually enriching quality of experiencing the Lord’s Supper as a child: ‘Just as with adults, the spiritual life of baptised children is enriched by the receiving of Holy Communion and their sense of belonging is affirmed and encouraged.’97 How does the Lord’s Supper enrich our spiritual lives? It does so by engaging the whole person.98 There is much we could cover at this point, however a brief summary will suffice:

First, the gospel is experienced anew and responded to (looking back and upwards). In the Lord’s Supper, the promises of the gospel are experienced, ‘as if painted in a picture’.99 We are not given merely theological information, we receive ‘a theological experience’ of the gospel, and by the physical act of receiving it, we are given ‘visible, tangible ways of expressing our faith’ (1 Corinthians 11:26).100 The Lord’s Supper is a means by which the Holy Spirit ministers to our souls: ‘In the Supper of the Lord… the Holy Spirit, not by external organs of the body, but by his secret virtue, feeds the souls of the faithful, both truly and efficaciously, with the body and the blood of the Lord unto eternal life, as truly as they know themselves to be nourished for this mortal life by bread and wine.’101

Second, corporate identity is built as the people of God (looking around). Rosner helpfully notes that in the Lord’s Supper, ‘we acknowledge our identity as part of the reconciled family of God.’102 A proper corporate sharing of the meal resists ‘corrosive individualism’, and promotes ‘generosity and humility.’103 This is because the Supper is not only my personal communion with the Lord, it’s a context to ‘minister to one another as we express our common participation in Christ as our Saviour and Lord’ (1 Corinthians 10:17).104

Third, humility and Godly dependence is fostered (looking down). As we eat and drink, we are humbly confronted with our ‘creatureliness’ before the one on whom we depend for life and salvation.105 In the Lord’s Supper, the reality of Deuteronomy 8:3 and the prayer of Matthew 6:11 resonate with our souls.106

Fourth, the Supper carries receive morally formative power (looking within). Greenman usefully observes that the Lord’s Supper ‘carries morally formative power as it is the main way that Christians, week by week, encounter the self-giving, others-focused, love of Jesus. We are called to model our lives, through the Spirit's power, upon his example.’107

Fifth, the kingdom is joyfully anticipated (looking forward). The Lord’s Supper equally contains an eschatological dimension (Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16). ‘The past is present to us. And so is the future’, as Greenman remarks.108 In the meal, we joyfully anticipate the heavenly wedding banquet (Revelation 19:9), and ‘though the feast the church celebrates is perhaps only a crumb or two from the table, it is a real anticipation of that future feast.’109

When celebrated properly, the Lord’s Supper excels in all these things. Christ graciously gives to us the manifold benefits of the gospel through audible words, visuals, touch, taste, and smell.110 And since we have established that children are full members of the body of Christ, who are capable of meeting the prerequisites of the meal, who are we to hinder them from reaping its benefits and joys?

D. PASTORAL IMPLICATIONS

Every church needs to discern whether ministries ‘are being carried out in ways that disadvantage or show insensitivity to any of its members’, particularly those communicating ‘a message of exclusiveness which is inconsistent with the reality of the oneness of Christ’s body.111 When contemplating the admission of children to the Lord’s Supper, I believe that pastoral implications lend more support for the practice, rather than dissuade us. Though there are many implications we could note, we will discuss only a few here.

Reiss summarises the crux of the pastoral complexity: ‘It is difficult to explain to a child who is regular in attendance why they may not receive communion’.112 Yet, most children find themselves in this situation of being denied what is rightfully theirs as members of the family of believers.113 What message does such a decision communicate to children? It certainly sends a message of exclusiveness and disunity condemned by Paul (1 Corinthians 11:17–18); it de facto makes infants and children second-class citizens of Christ’s body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12–27); and most troublingly, an automatic barring from the Lord’s Supper also applies a status of excommunication upon a child—a most serious form of church discipline.114

Calvin claims that when God ‘sees meet to withdraw our assurance of the things which he had promised in the sacraments, takes away the sacraments themselves.’115 Surely we would pray for an overflow of assurance for our youngest members, not the opposite! And so, as Sutton rightly states, ‘it becomes important for one who has been baptized to proceed to communion. If one does not, then he has effectively been excommunicated. Children must be included, therefore, who have been baptized.’116

If we do admit children to the Lord’s Supper, the pastoral value for children is immense. After interviewing several communicant children, Reiss states that ‘the receiving of the bread and wine was a tangible expression of God's acceptance of them and their worth. Grace was not just signed but given through the sacrament. Theologically I was already comfortable that it was right, but the practice confirmed the rightness.’117 Not only this, but he observed a by-product of allowing paedocommunion for enquiring baptismal families: ‘By explaining that the baptized would be communicant it made the parents think more about what baptism was about’, given it granted the child a right to be nurtured within the body of believers.118

A final pastoral implication relates to our overall discussion of whether theological knowledge determines participation in the sacrament. Sutton caricatures that while ‘the Baptists are guilty of irrationalism, requiring a conversion experience, Reformed churches have tended to teach that intellectual understanding is the way to God.’119 I believe there is a grave danger in adopting an ‘intellectualistic interpretation’, since the logic ‘forces us to unhappy conclusions’,120 as Sutcliffe states below:

To require “understanding” is to fence the Lord's table; it implies that a particular kind of “adult” mode of thinking is required. By such a standard the elderly who have become confused or the mentally handicapped, as well as children, would be excluded.121

As we can see, the pastoral implications that arise from paedocommunion lead us toward the conclusion that such a conclusion is the correct one. Now, we don’t have space here to consider how we would address the practical challenges that arise from paedocommunion, but it is enough for now to acknowledge here that they exist, and further discussion is required. First, paedocommunion calls into question the place of catechesis and confirmation. However, seeing these as a deterrent to paedocommunion is surely pulling the cart before-the-horse.122 Second, there are complexities around the giving of wine to children in churches where non-alcoholic alternatives are absent.123 Third, a pastorally sensitive response is required when accommodating parents who in good conscience have not had their children baptised (and therefore should or would be non-communicant) or parents who may equally choose to withhold the Lord’s Supper from their children for their own reasons. And sensitivity is similarly required for the children themselves, for there are issues that may arise when children compare themselves to one another.124

At the end of this essay, I’ve included a brief appendix where I draft a practical application in the Anglican context.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we have determined the degree a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper determines their involvement in the sacrament. Using biblical, historical, theological and pastoral categories, we have shown that a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper does not determine their involvement in the sacrament. Rather, we determined that a child’s eligibility to the sacrament rests upon three central principles:

1. Their ability to meet the scriptural requirements for participation in the Lord’s Supper;

2. Their genuine faith and maturity, appropriate to their age and development; and

3. Their communicant membership granted in their baptism.

Therefore, for children who meet these prerequisites, we saw that participation in the Lord’s Supper is not only permissible, but advantageous. Such admission to the Lord’s Supper will not only serve to benefit the individual and wider corporate body, it also provides the optimal setting for a child’s theological understanding of the sacrament to be bolstered.

APPENDIX: PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Space precludes us from suggesting a liturgical overhaul, however I believe there is value in setting some principles for how an inclusive Anglican communion service could function.125 Such a proposal undoubtedly requires further detail, however I also want to hold that not much need change in the liturgy to make it suitable for multi-generation participation.

Applied through Anglican context

The liturgy use in this example is the ‘Holy Communion Third Order’ (APBA1995), though the principles from this proposal are flexible enough to be applied to others.126

§§1–12 (as written)

§13 Scriptural Exhortation

The minister reads Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 11:26–28 as printed.

A further description is required here which frames what self-examination Paul requires of us before partaking in the Supper. It needs to emphasise both personal sin against God and poor treatment of the church body.

Alternatively, a paraphrase of Matthew 5:23–24 could be read:

Christ himself warns us that if we approach God and can recall our conflict with a fellow brother or sister, we must first go and be reconciled to them, and only then come forward.

§14 Confession

A deliberate silence must be held to allow each member, (including children) to recall their breakdowns in pursuing unity in the body, alongside their private sins.

The corporate confession prayer can then be recited as printed.

§15 Absolution

§16 The Greeting of Peace

The minister reads:

We are the body of Christ. (this affirmation needs to signal this ‘discernment’)
His Spirit is with us.

The peace of the Lord be always with you.
And also with you.

This time of greeting must be long enough for parishioners to approach their brothers and sisters, and pursue reconciliation with them if necessary. There is certainly scope for enjoying being part of the corporate body, however this is the most natural setting within the service for solemn reconciliatory peacemaking actions to take place, if we are to take seriously Paul’s exhortation. In other words, this shouldn’t be merely a ‘greet the people around you,’ but is intrinsic to the valid participation in the Supper.

§§17–18 (as written)

§19 The Breaking of Bread

For me, reading 1 Corinthians 10:17 here is really exciting, because…

We who are many are one body,
for we all share in the one bread

By including children in our celebration, finally this response is no longer a corporate lie!

§§20–25 (as written, except without the children being excommunicated)

A few decades ago in the 1980s, a particular American faith healer named Peter Popoff rose to prominence. And he would pack out theatres with people, and then over the course of the evening, he did this remarkable thing, where he would have this seemingly divine insight into people’s lives. He knew their names, their ailments and details of their lives. And he’d invite them to come forward for healing.

He’d look around the crowd and say,

‘The Lord is saying, the Lord is saying… There’s a woman in row J, seat 14, named Alice.’

And sure enough, there was.

‘You wanna get rid of this walker, sister?’

‘Yeah.’ She’d reply.

‘16/27^th Kent Street? Is that right?’

‘That’s right!’

He knew where she lived. And then inviting her to stand, he’d lay his hands on her, proclaiming: ‘Burning this arthritis, right outtya body! Take a few steps just to make the devil mad. Hallelujah!’1

And on he’d go the next person. Don Carson reflects on this, saying, ‘He would do this night after night after night, and he’d never get it wrong. It was so impressive that people thought, “Well, maybe the Lord is speaking because he’s really good.”’2 And Popoff was making millions of dollars from his miraculous healing ministry.

What should we make of things like this?

THE NEED IN EVERY GENERATION FOR DISCERNMENT

In every generation of the history of the church, Christians have encountered countless debates, new ideas, controversies, theological developments, heresies, trends, reformations, syncretism, denominational movements, cultural trends, political pressures, charismatic personalities, cults, revivals, awakenings, and more. In every generation, Christians have needed to decide what is true and what is not. What is of God and what is not.

All of this is to say that in every generation, there has always been the need for Christians to exercise discernment.

And this is why the Apostle Peter wrote his letter to the scattered Church in Asia Minor. Peter wants the church to grow in discernment. Peter wants Christians everywhere to grow in our discernment of truth. And this is what we’re focussing in on, in this article.

Please have a copy of 2 Peter open as we work through this. I want you to see and discern for yourself that the authority of what is taught is from God’s word, not simply this writer’s opinion.

Here’s a roadmap of where we are heading today:

First, we see our goal for discerning truth.
Second, how we grow in our discernment of truth. And,
Third, our need to guard the truth through discernment.

1. Our Goal for Discerning Truth (1:12–15)

First, from verses 12-15 of chapter 1, Peter gives us our goal for discerning truth. Why grow in discernment? Why is being discerning necessary for our Christian life?

Remember & rely upon the foundation

In 2 Peter 1:1-11, Peter showed us how the foundation of our salvation and sanctification as Christians… is faith in Jesus Christ. Trusting in who he was and what he accomplished in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

And now, in verses 12–15, Peter knows that his earthly apostolic ministry is coming to an end. He is not going to live forever, and so he implores the church to wake up and remember their foundation in Christ.

¹² So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. ¹³ I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, ¹⁴ because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. ¹⁵ And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. (2 Peter 1:12-15)

Notice how many times in these verses Peter uses ‘memory’ words? Remind, Know, Remember, v13 he wants to refresh… literally ‘wake up’ their memory of the gospel!

Our goal of growing in our discernment of truth, is so that we would always remember and rely on the foundational truth of the gospel. Rembering the story of Jesus, including his glorious return.

Peter is saying something profoundly important for us: ‘Believers know the gospel, and yet they must, in a sense, relearn it every day.’3 The gospel is not merely something for those who don’t yet know Jesus—the gospel is for Christians! I love what J. D. Greear says about this:

‘Growth in Christ is never going beyond the gospel, but going deeper into the gospel. The purest waters from the spring of life are found by digging deeper… into the gospel well.’4

So Peter wants us to see our discernment of truth as something which helps us guard the true and reliable foundation which we have in Jesus. Discernment ensures that we grow deeper into the gospel, not beyond it.

2. Growing in our Discernment of Truth (1:16–21)

So how do we grow in our discernment of this truth?

Living in a post-truth world

Eight years ago, Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year in 2016 was ‘post-truth’. ‘Post-truth is an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.’’5 And fast-forward to today, in a world teeming with Deep Fakes and Generative AI, it is fair to say that we live in an age where having confidence in the truth seems a little tricky.

Post-truth culture is nothing new

Even in the First Century, there were people and ideas jostling around, masquerading as the truth. In 2 Peter, we get an insight into the current threat that Peter is responding to. Within a generation of Jesus’ ministry, death, resurrection and ascension, it seems that there were already people teaching that Jesus was not, in fact, coming back.

The implications of this idea are: Since there was no future coming of Jesus, then logically, there would also be no judgement where Jesus calls everyone to account. If that’s the case, then it surely doesn’t matter how you live your life today… so go, be free and follow the passions of your heart!

To combat this threat to the truth, Peter gives the believers two reliable sources of truth, so that they may grow their discernment. And for us today, these two reliable sources of truth, remain vital for us to grow in our discernment too.

i. The true apostolic witness (vv.16–18)

First, Peter wants us to rely on the truthfulness of the apostolic witnesses. From verse 16, he says:

¹⁶ For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” ¹⁸ We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Peter is saying, ‘You can rely on what I and my fellow apostles teach about Jesus, because we were there. We saw and touched and heard Jesus for ourselves… we were eye-witnesses. Jesus himself taught us about who he was and about his future return. We didn’t make this up.’

The transfiguration as confirmation of Christ’s future return

Then, Peter starts talking about their experience of Jesus’ transfiguration.6 Why? Because for the apostles, this experience of seeing Jesus in his glorious splendour served as a foretaste of the future parousia. A theological term which refers to the glorious coming of the Son of Man at the end of the age (Matthew 24:27, et al.).7

It’s a bit like when I get carried away with cooking at home. Suddenly this unassuming circle on my ceiling erupts with a piercing scream! Sure, I held out hope that my smoke detector could and would protect us from an actual fire in the future, but having witnessed a glimpse of that sound and protection for myself now, is a confirmation that it is fitting to fulfil its true purpose in the future.

Peter’s point is that Jesus has shown us his true glory, so we know that he will return in that same glory one day, as he promised!

ii. The reliability of the Prophets (vv.19–21)

Second, Peter says we can rely on the reliability of the Old Testament prophets, which point to Jesus too. In verse 19, he says:

¹⁹ We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. (terms which refers to the final day of the Lord) ²⁰ Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. ²¹ For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The ‘day of the Lord’… Jesus

For Peter, the Old Testament prophets point forward and confirm a future ‘day of the Lord’. ‘In the Old Testament the day of the Lord is a day of judgment and salvation, when those who oppose God will be punished and those who love him will be delivered’8

And now for the Apostles, the transfiguration of Jesus has confirmed that this prophetic, anticipated day of the Lord, will be ultimately fulfilled when Jesus returns in glory at the end of the age—just as he promised and taught (cf. Acts 2:20; 2 Corinthians 1:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2).

Growing discernment by embracing Scripture

The primary way we grow in discernment is by embracing the trustworthiness, truthfulness, reliability, and supreme authority of Scripture. Both the Old Testament which points to Jesus, and the eye-witness, apostolic teaching of the New. Thankfully, Peter says this in a single verse in chapter 3:

‘I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.’ (2 Peter 3:2)

Both New and Old Testaments affirm: ‘There is a future coming of Christ for judgment and salvation.’9 And so, this certainty of the future must frame how we live today. It does matter how you live. Peter’s exhortations in 1:1-11 therefore must apply to all Christians as we await Christ’s return.

Growing in our discernment enables us to confidently hold to the firm and true foundation of Jesus, and not be led astray.

3. Guarding Truth through Discernment (2:1–22; 3:17–18)

And Peter is clear that there will be people and teachings which will try and entice us away from this truth.

The continual threat of false teaching (vv.1–3, 17–22)

In fact, the whole of chapter 2 is one giant, confronting warning of what every generation of Christians will encounter: false teaching. The Early Church faced false teaching and so do we today.

Peter starts chapter 2, saying:

2 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. ² Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. ³ In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. (2 Peter 2:1-3)

And on he goes for another 19 confronting, detailed verses. I won’t explore the details today, but I do recommend you read through it.

Guarding the Truth (3:17-18)

Peter’s point is that in the face of the continual threat of false teaching, you and I exhibiting discernment is how we guard the truth. At the end of his letter, Peter says he gave us these vivid warnings so that we would be on our guard.

¹⁷ Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. ¹⁸ But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. (2 Peter 3:17-18)

On our guard, so that we may not be unexpectedly carried away by deceptive error and falsehood, but rather, grow in grace and knowledge of the truth of Jesus.

Peter Popoff popping off

Despite many Christians believing that Popoff had divine powers, others, like Magician James Randi, suspected that something was not quite right. People noticed that ‘Popoff had a hearing aid. Exactly what a faith healer is doing with a hearing aid I’m not quite sure sure’. So one night, ‘without telling him, they went in there with a radio scanner’ to see if they could detect anything.10

And they did! They discovered what was happening. It turned out that Popoff’s ‘divine’ revelation was really coming from a far more worldly source: his wife.11 As Don Carson describes:

‘as people were coming into the meeting, was collecting cards they were filling out about prayer requests, pains, and so on. She’d be shuffling through them, and if she spotted one for back pain [for example] (as opposed to terminal cancer) … then she’d note carefully where the person sat. … once everybody got in and the meeting got going,’ she would sit down with a microphone and dictate those details to her husband.12

Turns out that Popoff’s hearing aid, was actually a radio receiver.

Once Randi discovered his secret, he arranged to have a recording of Popoff’s healings played on national television, but this time, they included the hidden audio prompts from his wife. As you can imagine, ‘when this was exposed on national television, Peter Popoff popped off.’13 He filed for bankruptcy the year after. But a few years later, he was at it again with his same old (and new) deceptions. In fact, he continues his deceptions even today.

A note of clarification…

In mentioning this story of Popoff, I want to make clear, that I’m not making any suggestion that God doesn’t heal people, or that He cannot reveal truths to us by his Spirit, or that everyone who prays for healing for others is like Popoff. Not at all.

On the contrary, I certainly believe God can heal and he does heal, and it is right and good and biblical to … pray for healing… when we get sick or somebody we love is sick.14 And the Bible says that the Spirit continues to grant some people gifts of healings for the building up of the church (1 Corinthians 12:9). But we also must affirm these with the understanding that ‘not everyone we pray for will necessarily be healed’.15 It’s part of living in a now-and-not-yet age.

Problematic assumptions of over-realised eschatology

For the believers the Apostle Peter was writing to, the prevalent false teaching was a denial of biblical eschatology—the return of Christ, judgement and salvation, and the blessings of a new creation.

Popoff that pronounced healing and prosperity, as part of growing in discernment, we also need to be wary of something called ‘over-realised eschatology’, which is the assumption that all the promised blessings associated with Christ’s return and heaven are to be experienced and expected in this present age.16 This is just as problematic and can lead to a plethora of other problems. Someone holding to an over-realised eschatology might wrongly assume that:

• Since the Bible promises that there will be no more sickness or pain in the future (Revelation 21:4), we should not experience sickness or pain in the present.

• Since the biblical picture of the new creation includes imagery of gold and splendour (Revelation 21:18-21), we should expect to be financially successful living in this creation.

• Since Christ will wipe away every sin and we’ll live in a sinless state in the future, we should expect to grow to sinless maturity and never struggle with sin in the present.17

While we await the certain and promised return of Jesus at the end of the age, we live in a now-and-not-yet kingdom. This means that not everyone we pray for will necessarily be healed, which can be really hard. In this present ‘partially-realised’ eschatology which we live in currently, we still await the future redemption of our bodies in the new creation (Romans 8:23). We shouldn’t infer that unanswered prayer is a failure of God or a deficiency of someone’s faith.

Following Peter’s warning

I focussed on this story of Popoff, because it is such a vivid example of the sort of wicked, greedy, manipulative, scamming, abusive, false teachers the Apostle Peter warns us about in his letter. Deceivers who are fundamentally evil, because they know they are charlatans. People who target vulnerable people, committing fraud in the name of God.18 And while it should certainly make us angry that people appear get away with away with it… since we know Christ is returning as judge, we know that he will call all to account for what they’ve done.

The failure of Christians exercising discernment

For me, the saddest thing about Popoff’s fraudulent ministry, is the fact that it was an atheist magician that exposed his deceptive, manipulative scam. ‘It should have been just sensible Christians [exercising discernment] who exposed that which is fraudulent in Jesus' name. That's really sad.’19

In every generation, there will always be teachers and teachings which threaten to carry us away from the truth. Therefore, we must grow in discernment so that this will not happen to us. Growing in our knowledge of the Scriptures, so that we would learn to hold fast to our firm foundation in the gospel, and not settle for anything less or more.

GROWING OUR DISCERNMENT

I want to finish this article by giving you a moment of personal reflection. Take some time to think though these questions:

• What do you think are some potential sources of error which Christians today might be tempted to follow?

• Are there areas where your church might need to be wary of?

• Have there been assumptions or beliefs, which you inherited over your Christian walk, but you have not actively discerned whether they are in line with God’s truth?

• Are there certain personalities or ministries or movements which you know are enticing you away from the foundational truth of Jesus?

• What area does God want me to grow in discernment today?

May Paul’s prayer in Philippians 1, be ours too:

⁹ And this is [our] prayer: that [our] love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, ¹⁰ so that [we] may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, ¹¹ filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9-11)

Amen.

As Charles the third was coronated as king, one of his sovereign titles, like his mother’s before him, became ‘Defender of the Faith’. But as we look over an increasingly post-Christian society here in the West, we can’t help but wonder: By the time William (Charles’ son) is king of England and takes on the title of ‘Defender of the Faith’ himself, will there be a faith left for the king to defend?

With a steady decline of those Australians ticking ‘Christian’, and a rising of the ‘nones’—those who align themselves ‘no religion’—what might it look like for you and I to defend the faith?1 What might it look like for you and I to proclaim Jesus, in a post-Christian world?

At a recent men’s ministry event, some of us present were reflecting on how increasingly challenging it can be to talk to others about our faith in our workplaces and social circles. Perhaps you’ve experienced this challenge too.

One reason things have become more challenging, is over the past few decades, our society has shifted. So what was effective in twentieth-century outreach and evangelism, may not be, in the postmodern society in which we now live.

This is because the modernity of the twentieth-century relied on two main assumptions about the world: ‘The first is that the scientific method results in objective truth. The second is that truth is available through reason.’2

So it made sense that our Christian outreach would appeal to these assumptions, with the popularity of apologetics and logical arguments that pointed us to the truth of Jesus’ existence and why we should believe in him. But in a postmodern society, we’re finding that these modernist assumptions about how we arrive at truth are generally both rejected.

So what might it look like for you and I to proclaim Jesus, in a postmodern, post-Christian world, where objective truth seems hard to come by?

THE IMPORTANCE OF ‘DISPLAYING’ JESUS

Theologian Robert Webber says something really interesting about this. He writes:

‘Postmodern evangelism is not so much an argument but a display. … We display what these words mean in the way we live and worship so that its reality, once displayed, cannot be denied, only rejected or entered into.’3

How might we might display the reality of Jesus to our postmodern society? John 12:1–11 gives us two powerful ways we can do that.

John 12: Setting the scene

Let’s follow the narrative of the passage first.

¹ Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. ² Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. ³ Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

⁴ But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, ⁵ “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” ⁶ He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

⁷ “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. ⁸ You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

⁹ Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. ¹⁰ So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, ¹¹ for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.

In verse 1, John sets the scene: ‘Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany.’

It was coming very near the end for Jesus. He knew that he would soon die in Jerusalem. He spends that week in Bethany, a town just outside the city.4 Bethany was the hometown of his beloved friends Mary, Martha, and the freshly raised Lazarus.

And on this night, Jesus has been invited to a dinner, a banquet in his honour. So we enter the scene, and Jesus is enjoying a banquet alongside the man whose life has been completely transformed by him. Can you imagine the elation and celebration present in the room?

But then, something unexpected. In walks Mary. And she’s carrying something.

Now back in Luke 10, remember it was Mary who, instead of helping her sister with the housework, sat herself down at Jesus’ feet to learn from him (Luke 10:38–42). And Jesus praised Mary for her devotion.

And once again, here is Mary, this time carrying an alabaster jar. The conversation stops. All eyes are on her. She once again makes her way to Jesus’ feet. To everyone’s surprise, Mary breaks open the jar and slowly starts pouring its fragrant oil all over Jesus’ feet.

As everyone watches, Mary unties her hair in front of Jesus and lets it down. The first-century household would be asking: What is she doing? Women don’t let their hair down in public like this?5 And then to make it even more confronting, Mary starts wiping the expensive perfume over Jesus’ feet; with her own hair! And as she does this dramatic, vulnerable, costly act, John adds: ‘And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.’ (John 12:3)

I wonder if you have ever smelled an odour, and it has taken you straight back to a vivid memory? The smell of a delicious curry, a particular brand of perfume, perhaps an unpleasant smell? I once took someone for a drive in my car. And they accidentally spilt a bottle of Balsamic Vinegar all over the footwell! And now, every time I smell Balsamic Vinegar on a salad, it takes me right back to that moment. It’s so vivid for me. No doubt this aroma would have had the same effect on all those there on that memorable night.

So how does this part of John 12 equip us to display Jesus today? John gives us two ways.

i. Living Martyrs: The power of sharing your Jesus story (John 12:1–2; 9–11)

The first way we can display Jesus to the world is by being ‘living martyrs’. And by that I mean: recognise the power of sharing your ‘Jesus story’.

In the New Testament, the Greek verb μαρτυρέω (martueo), from where we get the word ‘martyr’, simply means to testify or to witness. In a postmodern world where rational, objective truth seems hard to come by, living and telling our story about how Jesus has impacted us, is one of the most powerful and compelling things we can do. And we see this in the life of Lazarus, don’t we?

As Mary is turning heads inside the house, outside we see there is a crowd forming, verse 9. Why are they here? Well the crowd wants to see Jesus, but notice that they’re also wanting to see Lazarus. Why? Because Lazarus is a living, breathing, testament to the work of Jesus. And his story was compelling, it was undeniable, and in verse 11, John ends our passage by saying that many of the Jews were believing in Jesus… because of Lazarus.

And what I love about John’s Gospel is that Lazarus’ witness is just one of many examples of this:

• The woman at the well in John 4 encountered Jesus and went on to lead people to him (John 4:39–42).

• The man born blind and healed by Jesus in John 9 went on to tell everyone he met about what Jesus had done for him, even the Pharisees (John 9:25, 27).

• And later in John 12, those men and women who were witnesses of Jesus’ work in Lazarus, they too in John 12:17 went on to μαρτυρέω, to witness, to tell their story.

They all continued to display Jesus to a watching world.

A story of healing

Last month at a thanksgiving service, amongst the many encouraging stories of Jesus working in people’s lives, I remember hearing one person share their story about being diagnosed with a terminal illness, then receiving prayer for healing in Jesus’ name, and now living free from illness. In their words: ‘I was sick. Now I'm not. And all that was in between is Jesus.’

Stories like this are powerful, living displays of Jesus. The power of a story about Jesus is that they ‘cannot be denied, only rejected or entered into.’6

Your story

Maybe Jesus’ work in your life may not feel as dramatic as a miraculous healing. But if you are a Christian, we all have a powerful story to share, and we all are called to ‘be prepared to [share] the reason for the hope that you have.’ (1 Peter 3:15). Reach out to a mature Christian in your circles if you would like help thinking through your Jesus story, and how to share it.

ii. Anointing Feet: The power of costly devotion to Jesus (12:3–8)

A second way we can display Jesus to the world is by ‘anointing feet’. By ‘anointing feet’ I mean, expressing our costly devotion to Jesus.

We live in a society where we will happily spend money on things we believe are important. We can spend tens of thousands of dollars on that once-in-a-lifetime holiday. The average cost of a wedding in Australia is something like $50,000. The fireworks in Melbourne on New Year’s Eve cost $4.5 million. We happily spend lots of money on things which we believe are important.

What would it look like if we displayed and showcased the importance of Jesus, by our costly devotion to him? What would it look like for our witness if we were more like Mary? I appreciate what Josh Moody says about this. He writes:

‘Worship of Jesus… is to be fulsome and to express the value that Jesus has as the One above all other values.’7

Mary got this. Whether or not she fully realised in how imminent Jesus’ death would be as she anointed his body, Jesus’ response to Mary’s devotion was full of praise.

In Jesus’ eyes, Mary’s costly investment in Jesus was fitting for who he was; it was fitting for this unique moment in salvation history; it was fitting for the infinite value of what Jesus was about to give on the cross. I love that in Jesus’ eyes, no genuine act of devotion is wasted (see Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9). As far as I can tell, this is the first time in John that Jesus begins speaking openly about his death. Jesus used Mary’s act of extravagant generosity, to introduce his own costly giving of himself.

So what might ‘anointing feet’ look like for you and I today?

Extravagant financial generosity

Given the financial cost of the perfume, displaying our devotion to Jesus by our willingness to be extravagantly generous with our money is surely the most obvious application for us.

Some time ago someone was trying to sell their car. And there was a member of their church who, rather suddenly, had their car break down in an almost irreparable way. They needed a car to get to work and drop the kids off at school. Knowing that someone in the church was selling their car, another member of the church reached out to them privately and said, ‘If this person would like your car, I would like to pay you whatever amount you are wanting for it, so you can offer your car to them as a gift.’

I am also greatly encouraged by Christians that invest in giving extravagantly to building projects and other financial ministry appeals. It’s generosity motivated by a love of Jesus and making his church as welcoming as it can be. It demonstrates that Christians are people sacrificially devoted to the ministry and purposes of Jesus in their church.

Allegiance: Baptism

But it’s not just money that carries value, is it? One of the wonderful actions that carry value is that of Christian baptism. In coming forward for baptism, it is an undeniable act where Christians proclaim that in a pluralistic world vying for our allegiance, we declare, ‘Jesus, we want you to be first in our lives.’ This costly act of allegiance to Jesus is something worth celebrating. And for those who might be witnesses of someone’s baptism who are not sure what they think about Jesus themselves, baptism is an invitation to ask: ‘What kind of a person must Jesus be, for people around the world to joyfully devote themselves to following him?’

Time and service

Josh Moody writes:

‘For many of us in the West, time is the most costly item we have to offer: time spent serving Jesus, whether in children’s ministries or in the world of business, whether in preaching, or in evangelizing, whether as a leader of a committee or a cleaner of floors. And all of the time we pour out for Jesus, as we pour it into serving him, is a pleasing aroma to our Lord and Master.’8

I keep a digital timesheet. In this technological, productivity-driven age, I could quite easily ask AI to write me a sermon or article on John 12. That would certainly save me a lot of time. But one of the ways that I choose to serve Jesus and his people is with my time. Time spent prayerfully studying his word, time spent reading and listening to others, time spent reflecting and preparing, and then time spent editing it down so it’s as concise as it needs to be.

I love hearing people share their experiences when they return from Summer Missions and Red Frogs. One of the frequent things I hear is a sense of intrigue when the young people engaged with in these ministries realise that these Christians are freely, joyfully, volunteering to be there. (Or rather, paying money, to be there to serve them!) It inevitably raises the question in their mind: ‘Why? Why would you volunteer to spend a week with us? What is so important in your life that you would happily give away a week or more to be with us?’

The ways we intentionally invest our time, our values, and our finances, are all ways that we can display Jesus to a watching world.

iii. Be Ready: Criticism from inside (12:4–6); Persecution from outside (12:10–11)

But amongst the beaty of anointing feet and story sharing, John is also clear that we shouldn’t be surprised when we face opposition. John’s effectively saying: ‘When you proclaim Jesus, be ready for criticism from inside the church, and be ready for persecution from outside.

Criticism from inside

Did you notice in John 12, no sooner did Mary pour out the perfume, did Judas pipe up and criticise her for it. ‘Mary, what are you doing?! Do you have any idea how much that cost? Think of all the useful things you could have used that money for! Think of the poor and the needy that you could have supported instead?’

Christian Superbowl Ad: Wise or Waste?

You may have heard about the Christian ads aired during the American Super Bow the other week. And given how much money was invested to broadcast in that expensive time slot, it’s no surprise that other Christians have reacted using almost exactly the same words as Judas in our passage:

‘Millions of dollars on Super Bowl ads promoting Jesus would have been better spent on housing those sleeping outdoors and feeding those who are hungry.’9

Now I will leave it up to you to decide whether this ad was a wise investment or a waste, but we shouldn’t be surprised when costly investment in the name of Jesus attracts criticism—whether it’s a Super Bowl ad or a multi-million dollar church building project.

What’s the motivation of the heart?

The fact that Jesus praises Mary for the intention behind her costly devotion, shows us that when it comes to sacrificially giving for Jesus (with our finances, our allegiance, our time, etc), what matters most, is the intention of our heart. Ask yourself, am I motivated by a desire to love and please and proclaim Jesus with my actions? Could it be that an action that appears wasteful from my perspective, appears that way because I don’t know the heart of the person being generous?

Persecution from outside

Of course, criticism from within isn’t the only thing we face when proclaiming Jesus. John highlights that Lazarus himself faced persecution for his boldness to testify about his saviour. And you and I know all too well, the hardship, imprisonment, or worse that the worldwide church faces for the sake of the gospel.

Don’t give up!

Yes, we live in a postmodern, post-Christian society. Proclaiming Christ can be hard. Yes, we will face criticism from inside. Yes, we will experience persecution from outside. But let’s not shy away from proclaiming and displaying Christ in our world.

As we’ve seen in John 12, let’s display Jesus to the world. Displaying Jesus, both in our willingness to be living martyrs like Lazarus: being living witnesses who openly speak about Jesus’ work in our lives. And by expressing our costly devotion like Mary: being sacrificially generous with our finances, with our time, and with our decisions to a world that’s looking on.

You and I can’t know what the future holds for Christianity in Australia. But as we move towards the events of Good Friday and Easter, let’s remember the words of G. K. Chesterton who said:

‘Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave.’10

If you are a Christian, you and I follow the one who is ‘the resurrection and the life’ (John 11:25). The one who is building his church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it (Matthew 16:18).

May Christ give us what we need to keep displaying him in our world today. May he use our words and our actions to bring people to himself.

In Colossians 3:12, Paul says:

VISIT COL312 Store Now!

What is COL312?

I am a creative person and I love using my gifts to serve God’s people. COL312 began in 2016 with the aim to visually represent passages from the Bible in ways that spark curiosity in those who see it. Every COL312 design is based on a passage in the Bible, and each shirt has the reference to the Bible passage on the back. My hope is that by wearing these clothes, you can start a conversation about life, death and eternity with someone around you.

VISIT COL312 Store Now!

How do I create the designs?

I use different methods, depending on the look I want to achieve.

For example, for some of the simple, clean designs I will use a vector editing program like Adobe Illustrator or Affinity Designer:

For other designs, I use Adobe Photoshop or Affinity Photo to add further details, and some are designed entirely in these programs:

And others, I will approach them in a completely different way. For my 1 Corinthians 15 ‘chalkboard’ design, I manually drew and shaded the image on paper, then scanned the image:

For another design of Jesus feeding the 5,000, I used 3D modelling software and manually placed thousands of people into shapes. Well worth a look at that one!

VISIT COL312 Store Now!

This is the second of a two-part contribution to the topic of multicultural churches. See part 1 here.

If you read my previous article, we looked at three benefits of fostering a multicultural church. I believe it is imperative for church leaders and members alike to seriously consider a contextually appropriate way of being a multicultural church.

As mentioned in the last article, Brouwer describes truly multicultural churches as ones that represent an engagement of people from varied nationalities, who still identify with and engage with those cultures to some degree.1 Of course, if people are identifying and engaging with those varied cultures as they gather, this raises big questions about the inevitable tension between diversity and unity between these cultures. Branson and Martínez highlight the crux of our discussion in this article: ‘The question is how to express the new reality of the gospel in ways that both celebrates our differences and draws us toward unity in Jesus Christ.’2 So how do we do it?

FIVE COMMON APPROACHES TOWARDS FOSTERING A MULTICULTURAL CHURCH

We will consider five approaches that churches typically pursue to achieve this multicultural vision. A multicultural church will aim to both celebrate cultural diversity while also expressing unity in Christ. Some ministry approaches fare much better than others when pursuing this goal. Broadly speaking, churches will either hold distinct worship gatherings catering to different cultural groups, or they will attempt to integrate different cultures within the one worship gathering. The first category prioritises diversity, the second prioritises unity.3 I’ve created a diagram to summarise how these five approaches relate to one another:

We will discuss these approaches in the order below, but feel free to click on one to jump straight to it:

i. Monocultural ‘Silos’

ii. Multicultural Partnership

iii. Monocultural Assimilation

iv. Multicultural ‘Variety Show’

v. Intercultural Community

Which is the best approach? As we will see, I believe that a genuine multicultural expression of church is possible regardless of whether your worship gatherings are distinct or combined. Both have strengths, however, neither is without challenges either. These challenges can certainly be mitigated to some extent by wise leadership. And adequate consideration of your context and congregation size is vital for determining the best way forward.

A. DISTINCT GATHERINGS

These first two approaches tackle the challenge of creating a multicultural church by offering two (or more) distinct services to cater for people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. A ‘distinct gatherings’ model prioritises cultural diversity and excels at offering culturally sensitive expressions of Christianity. However, as we will see, adequately accentuating the unity between these diverse cultures inevitably becomes a challenge.

i. Monocultural ‘Silos'

The monocultural silos church model will typically have at least two ethnically distinct congregations—say, an Anglo-Australian and a Chinese congregation—usually divided according to language. In some instances, an ethnic subculture may be ‘planted’ from within the dominant congregation’s culture. Usually though, a new cultural demographic and congregation is taken on by the original congregation and allowed use of their facility—often relating as ‘tenants’ to the larger ‘landlord’ congregation.4 These congregations will often have their own distinct leadership structures and usually gather at different times to one another so that the same facility can be used for each. (While not the focus of this article, many churches tend to ‘silo’ their generational ministries in ways not dissimilar to this cultural approach—here’s my take on multigenerational ministry)

The Homogeneous Unit Principle

The sentiment of this approach follows the ‘Homogeneous Unit Principle’ (HUP) developed by Allen, McGavran, and Wagner. The underlying assumption of this principle is that ‘people prefer to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic or class barriers.’5 Therefore, it is suggested that culturally siloed churches encourage growth since people of all cultures are the most responsive to the gospel in homogenous contexts.6

For all of its tidiness, I find the ideology of HUP as a model for multicultural churches unpersuasive. Evidence suggests that while isolating homogeneous congregations may lead to church growth, it is certainly not the only approach for doing so.7 Furthermore, these churches face significant challenges when seeking to accommodate second-generation members of these ethnic subcultures. Consider, for instance, where an Australian-born child of Chinese migrants may best be integrated in the life of a monoculturally siloed church. Perhaps most importantly, HUP fails to capture the biblical vision for the church, which is frequently depicted as breaking down homogeneous units of race and class (Romans 15:7–13; Ephesians 2:13–22).

Reflection

So, is a monocultural silos approach the best way to be a multicultural church? A culturally siloed church may experience growth in attendance, at least initially. On the surface, cultural diversity is occurring within the church and this is often celebrated as multiculturalism. However, the power imbalance that typically exists between the cultures and the lack of intentional interaction and learning between the cultures, creates something resembling ‘cultural pluralism’, ‘siloed cultures’, or even, in Whitesel’s words, ‘cultural apartheid’.8 In Oritz’s view:

This model is presented by denominations as a multiethnic congregation, but in reality the relationships [between cultures] are not stable and never go beyond the renting stage to achieve mutual accountability. Therefore, this cannot be considered a multiethnic congregation.9

While short-term church growth is to be celebrated, it must not come at the cost of pursuing healthy ‘race relations and to racial and ethnic reconciliation in the Christian community’, mutual edification being one of the main benefits of multicultural churches.10

ii. Multicultural Partnership

Fortunately, this siloed multicultural model can be improved. Rather than conceiving of a multicongregational church as isolated silos relating to each other in asymmetrically power balanced ways, a far more advantageous approach is for a church to view these cultural communities as partners in the gospel. Whitesel terms this approach as a ‘Multicultural Alliance Church’, which is ‘a heterogeneous organization led by an inclusive and balanced alliance drawing from the different cultures it is reaching. The alliance honors cultural differences by embracing multiple, culturally different worship services that are led by a heterogeneous organization.’11

A multicultural partnership is seen and operates as ‘one church’, comprised of two or more cultural congregations. The pastoral leaders for each congregation form the united multicultural leadership team for the church and share equal stake in evangelism, vision and resources.12 For Whitesel, ‘A strong respect and appreciation of cultural differences often results when leaders are forced to work together to run a church.’13 Accordingly, for members of these cultural congregations, their experience as part of a ‘multicultural’ church can be genuine as the congregations move towards ‘celebration’ or ‘integrative’ models, where autonomous congregations are united by a shared vision, ownership, and regular celebrative fellowship, hospitality, and focussed ministries.14 ‘Worship is still separate, but with combined services on a regular basis. Leaders of the congregations see themselves as one team. Interaction across services happens at all levels.’15

St Thomas’ Anglican Church in Burwood presents itself as an example of a multicultural partnership church. Their website describes themselves as ‘one church with four diverse congregations that meet on Sundays… Ministering to congregations of every age with English, Cantonese and Mandarin language services.’ The diversity of their ordained and lay leadership reflects this multicultural partnership.

Reflection

The multicultural partnership approach is certainly an improvement over the ‘monocultural silos’ expression of this distinct gatherings category. Interaction is ensured and imbalances of leadership power can be mitigated. Orriz and Yang believe that ongoing engagement with second generation migrants is aided by having a multicongregational church like this, since these younger people can easily transition to an English-speaking service at the same location—ideally at the same time also—as they feel comfortable, without undermining the unity of the church as a whole.16

In terms of challenges, even with a united leadership, the partnership approach still creates culturally isolated congregations since language differences will almost always create these demarcations. From a pragmatic perspective, for this partnership model to function well, churches will need to have sufficient facilities and leadership to run parallel gatherings. This may not be possible for small churches. In her studies, Yang provides helpful practical guidance for when such a multicultural partnership approach may be winsome:

The Partnership model works more effectively when the English-speaking and NESB [Non-English Speaking Background] congregations are of similar size and have a shared vision.17

While ‘distinct gatherings’ approaches inescapably emphasise diversity over unity, a genuine multicultural church can exist within this framework, provided there is careful consideration of the context and congregation size, as well as a commitment to partnership and regular intercultural interaction.

B. COMBINED GATHERING

The next three approaches tackle the challenge of creating a multicultural church by attempting to integrate people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds within the one worship gathering. A ‘combined gathering’ model prioritises unity as all members are physically present together. However, as we will see, the extent in which members’ diverse cultural backgrounds can be sincerely expressed and experienced inevitably becomes a challenge for combined gatherings.

iii. Monocultural Assimilation

It is quite normal for the dominant ethnic culture present in a church to define the cultural expression for that church—which in the Australian context typically represents an Anglo-Australian church. The result is that any cultural minorities who may join that community are expected to conform to and assimilate into the prevailing culture’s expression of church.18 As Whitesel rightly remarks, this ‘model is not actually multicultural but is listed here because of prevalence.’19 By and large, most churches in Australia are close to this model.20 (And I would suggest that many non-English-speaking monoethnic churches would fall into this category too)

Reflection

In one sense, I appreciate that this approach honestly questions whether the gospel even needs to be ‘marketed’ to a diverse audience at all; since the gospel rightly transcends all cultures.21 It taps into a ‘Christianised’ build-it-and-they-will-come adage: Preach the gospel, and people of all backgrounds will come to our church. There is a genuine desire to bring the gospel to other cultures. However, such a sentiment fails to recognise that Anglo-Australian expressions of the gospel and the church are just as enculturated as any other representation.22 For example, Anglo churches tend to favour individualism over collectivism. Freedom over duty. ‘Suffering’ in the New Testament tends to be conflated with what Western society understands suffering to be. Even the fact that the sermons and worship are communicated in English is a culturally-motivated decision. Yang offers a cutting rebuke:

Many within the dominant culture are unaware of other cultural patterns. They assume that their Anglo-Australian Christian culture is the norm and that people from other cultures will be assimilated into their culture. They have dominance and power, and may assume they will retain it, not expecting minority groups to have a voice or have an impact on the direction and views of their children.23

The flaw of this approach to multicultural praxis is that it springs from an unhealthy ethnocentrism exhibited by the dominant culture.  Certainly, the church may likely still attract some members from ethnically diverse backgrounds, however the prevalence of Anglo-Australian culture results in minimal effort made by members of that dominant culture to understand the cultural contexts of others.24 In its pursuit of assimilating subcultures into the prevailing one, this model creates a truncated expression of the biblical church, fails to capture God’s vision for his people, and prohibits the mutual edification which takes place in truly multicultural environments.25 There must be a better approach than this.

iv. Multicultural ‘Variety Show’

If our first two models sought to maintain cultural integrity by separating cultural groups, this fourth approach does precisely the opposite: unique cultures are combined to form a single, united congregation. This multicultural approach is sometimes referred to ‘melting pot theory’, as it implies that ‘any new ethnic group becomes completely assimilated as the cultures meld together to form a new dominant culture.’26 In practice, this tends to look like a ‘blended culture’, where variety and diversity is celebrated by ‘sprinkling’ cultural relics from all contributing ethnicities into one united spiritual experience.27 It is not uncommon to experience a variety of international musical styles within one service, coupled with distinctive cultural spiritual practices and languages. The Thy Kingdom Come service I attended at St Paul’s Cathedral several years ago is an example of this multicultural approach.28

Reflection

This approach certainly may address the challenges with unity identified by other models. However, unless diligence and care is employed by the leadership team, the resulting experience may be at risk of feeling like a farcical cultural ‘variety show’, where each cultural expression is followed by the next ‘act’. As a combined experience, Whitesel observes that this style can feel like ‘a less than appetizing concoction’, mainly because the resultant blended culture is unnatural for all participants.29 In Yang’s words: ‘everybody, to some degree, feels they are an outsider.’30 The challenge of a blended model like this lies in determining the extent to which people’s input cultures can be respectfully represented, rather than being patronisingly diluted to the extent of tokenistic stereotypes. Taylor’s sentiments are apt:

[W]e don’t want the ecumenical cooks to throw all the cultural traditions on which they can lay their hands into one bowl and stir them to a hash of indeterminate colour.31

Additionally, it is questionable under this blended approach whether cultural barriers and division are actually traversed at all, since the culture ‘variety show’ acts remain stratified, and do not interrelate in any meaningful sense.

v. Intercultural Community

Fortunately, this multicultural approach can be improved. Branson and Martínez believe this blended approach excels when the focus is on Christians pursuing ‘cultural boundary crossing with neighbors and intercultural life within their congregations.’32 This model sees a church as a united congregation, though comprised of people from varied ethnic backgrounds. Where this differs from the ‘variety show’ blended model, is that genuine interrelationship between cultures is paramount, with a commitment to multiethnic leadership, contextualised worship and preaching, and culturally diverse influences over the life and ministry of the church.33 Worshippers embody a willingness to integrate and learn from other cultures.34 Through pursuing an intercultural expression of church, members will experience growth and enrichment, as genuine cultural relationships create an environment of ‘desire to learn from each other’.35

Brunswick Baptist Church presents itself as a sustainable example of such an intercultural church. They write on their website:

[O]ur congregation is now made up of many cultures, backgrounds, ages, and languages, reflecting the vibrancy and diversity of our surrounding suburb. We believe that we can come to know God through this diversity, and by wrestling together with scripture and the Christian tradition, with respect, reverence, and questioning.36

Reflection

I recall a recent experience in my own multicultural Bible study group. We were studying Deuteronomy 18:9–14, in which God speaks out about witchcraft, mediums and the occult. As an Anglo-Australian myself, I found it enlightening and beneficial hearing reflections from members of the group who grew up in non-Western cultures where these practices were commonplace. Having this shared learning enabled me and the wider group to better connect with Scripture and understand its meaning.

On this theme of cross-cultural learning, Michael Bird goes to pains to explain that the Bible is not a book ‘written to us, nor was it written about us’, meaning any encounter with the biblical text involves entering a ‘historically and culturally distant world’.37 Through a commitment to intercultural life, Christians are better equipped to understand their own cultural biases towards Scripture, and will learn insights and applications which better reflect the diversity of the global church.38 Insights into the Bible and the gospel are to be welcomed through different cultural perspectives, with the expectation of mutual enrichment in faith and community, and without diminishing the distinctives of someone’s native culture.

The challenge of syncretism

Yang rightly acknowledges that while this intercultural model can be exciting, it is also the most complex and challenging to maintain.39 When pursuing a vision of an integrated intercultural community like this, problems may arise when differences in cultural expressions of worship simply make worship unconducive or prohibitive for another culture. Lingenfelter and Mayers emphasise this issue by illustrating the irreconcilable differences between a mainstream American Evangelical Mega-church presentation of ‘worship’ and a Saudi Arabian Muslim.40

The inherent tendency toward syncretism in this multicultural model will also reach a point where the differences in cultural expressions create challenges to unity with the historic catholic church, both in areas of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

In summary, the ‘intercultural community’ is a vast improvement over the ‘cultural variety show’ expression of this approach. However, even though a genuine multicultural church can exist within this framework, when multicultural unity is pursued, diversity and genuine expressions of cultural worship will become more challenging. In her studies, Yang provides helpful practical guidance for when such a multicultural approach may be winsome:

The Integrated model… can work effectively when there are lots of small groups of people from many different communities.41 This model, however, may be less suited to big churches, or the Anglo-Australian churches without NESB [Non-English Speaking Background] people, or to a large NESB group in an Australian church.42

C. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Near the start of my previous article I said that with this vision of a multicultural church ‘comes much to ponder and many complexities to navigate.’ It particularly raises important questions about the tension between unity and cultural diversity. As we have examined these five approaches, I trust you appreciate these challenges that we face. As we consider potential ways forward, here are a few other complexities to navigate with your church context.

i. The challenge of language

Language is probably the most significant cultural barrier to overcome.43 Ortiz concedes that ‘Language, more than anything else, seems to be what keeps congregations separated. There are certainly cultural issues, but language is what most churches indicated are the dividing line.’44

Even the Apostle Paul recognises the barriers to complete participation if language prevents content from being knowable to another:

‘Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.’ (1 Corinthians 14:16–17)

One can easily imagine the difficulty of genuine multicultural participation in church meetings, if each sub-culture is appealing to terminology and language alien to the remainder of the group.45 These challenges can certainly be overcome with respectful listening, questioning, humility, and a willingness to learn another language, though these require additional patience and energy to work through.

ii. The paradox of language

Differences in language certainly create practical challenges to unity. However, it might be surprising to learn that creating distinctions based on language, while a barrier to practical unity, is not treated in the New Testament in the same way as barriers of race and class (Galatians 3:26–29; Ephesians 2:11–16; Colossians 3:11). The biblical translatability of the Christian faith means that Christianity embraces all languages, effectively affirming: You can be a genuine disciple of Christ in your own language and culture. The message of the gospel and its obedience is translatable into other languages and cultures. You can be a genuine follower of Jesus as an Arabic, English, or Hindi speaking person, and in countries where these languages are widespread.46 This is precisely the issue at stake in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1–35), where attempts to ‘assimilate Gentile Christianity into Judaism’ is challenged.47 While we are called to break down barriers of race, class, and gender, almost paradoxically, Christians have a right to be able to worship Christ in their own language, and in their own culture.

At Deep Creek Anglican Church, the ministry team were met with the challenge of running an English-speaking service, with an increasing cohort of Farsi-speaking people joining the congregation. They had a loving desire to welcome the participation of people who found English difficult to comprehend. Their solution was to invest in Farsi-speaking ministers who were able to offer live, in-ear translation of the English service into Farsi, and on-screen Bible readings displayed parallel in Farsi, which enables people from different cultures and languages to gather in the one space and worship together in their native tongue. Alongside this, a Farsi Bible study group was offered, which provided further means of integrating non-English speakers into the ministry of the church.

For denominations where written liturgy informs their worship, one effective way of affirming this balance is by enabling members to pray and speak the same liturgy as others, but in their native tongue. St Paul’s Anglican Cathedral uses this approach for items, such as the Lord’s Prayer:

For congregations with linguistically diverse members, another way forward may be to foster a culture of language-specific small groups which meet during week, in addition to the one united, gathered worship service.

iii. The challenge of contextualisation

But language is not the only cultural barrier to navigate. For Sam Chan, the task of uniting cultures under the truth of the gospel is even more complex than mere comprehension of varied language: it requires a conscientious engagement with a contextualised gospel for each culture.48 Christianity is not tied to a particular nation or culture in the way that some other religions tend to be.

And so, without adequate contextualisation of the message, churches will tend to fall into either syncretism or colonialism as they seek to communicate the gospel cross-culturally. Effective cultural contextualisation, then, means that churches have both entered and challenged other cultures with the gospel, resulting in imperatives of gospel obedience and expression that are culturally appropriate for that community.49 This is another massive topic, which I’ll need to write about in the future! I mention it here simply because it needs to be a consideration when accommodating and reaching people from other cultures with the gospel.

Over to you!

Well, with all of this under our belts, it is my hope that our churches will grow to foster a multicultural identity, and that members and leaders alike will explore contextually appropriate ways of doing this in your community. May God bless you as you seek his wisdom.

‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (Galatians 3:28)

This is the first of a two-part contribution to the topic of multicultural ministry. See part 2 here.

If you were to ponder three or four words that describe your church or ministry, would ‘multicultural’ be one of them? Christians can hold a variety of views around multicultural ministry. Perhaps you are curious about multicultural churches but aren’t sure what the benefits might be. Or perhaps you’ve been considering pursuing a more multicultural community in your church but aren’t sure how to communicate it biblically or pragmatically with others. In this article, we will consider three benefits of fostering a multicultural church. Our second article then considers five common approaches towards fostering a multicultural church.

What is a ‘multicultural’ church?

Before we discuss the benefits of fostering a multicultural church, it’s important to consider what ‘multicultural’ is. Demarcations of race and ethnicity are certainly major categories which constitute a person’s culture, but so are lesser considered differences, such as generational age groups, differences in income, profession, education, and gender. While it’s always beneficial to consider multicultural in the broadest sense of the term, we will give particular focus to demarcations of race and ethnicity in this article.

Multiethnic or Multicultural?

What does it mean for a church community to be multicultural—distinct from, say, multiethnic? Douglas Brouwer gives a helpful perspective, claiming that multicultural churches extend beyond a mere ‘unexpected mix of nationalities, races, and skin tones’, rather multicultural churches are ones that represent an engagement of people from varied nationalities, but who still identify with and engage with those cultures to some degree.1

In other words, a multiethnic church in Australia might have a congregation comprised of people from different nationalities, but their expression of worship remains distinctly monocultural, meaning that these peoples’ deeper cultural identities are not engaged with to a meaningful level. A multicultural church, by contrast, envisages a church which enables and fosters Chinese Christians worshipping as Chinese Christians, South Sudanese Christians as South Sudanese, Anglo Christians as Anglo.

Of course, with this vision comes much to ponder and many complexities to navigate. It raises important questions about the tension between unity and cultural diversity. How this might be done well is a discussion saved for our second article! But before we get there, it’s helpful to consider some benefits of fostering a multicultural church. Here are three:

i. Multicultural churches are an outworking of the gospel

A first benefit of churches embracing multicultural identities is theological. A multicultural church is a clear outworking of obedience to God’s word and will, and follows the pattern set by Christ and the Apostles (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:5–11; Romans 15:7–14; 1 Corinthians 9:20–23; Galatians 3:26–29; Ephesians 2:11–16; Colossians 3:11; plus heaps in the Old Testament: Genesis 12:3; Deuteronomy 10:16–19; Isaiah 56:7, etc).2

Rebecca McLaughlin rightly affirms that ‘the Christian movement was multicultural and multiethnic from the outset… [and that] Christianity is the most ethnically, culturally, socioeconomically, and racially diverse belief system in all of history.’3 This theme is even clearer if we approach this issue eschatologically, as Revelation 7:9 envisages a vividly multicultural, eternal kingdom. And so, it is not accurate to suggest that the church should be multicultural; rather, the church is multicultural.

The reality

And yet, I suspect Brouwer’s experience resonates with many of us: ‘No church I have served over the years has looked exactly like the neighborhoods and communities in which the churches were located’, instead often finding themselves drifting into monoethnic groups.4 Tracey Lewis-Giggetts makes a similar observation: ‘Heaven is going to look a whole lot different from your church right now.’5 Her book The Integrated Church invites us to imagine what our churches could be if we cultivated a multicultural vision:

[W]e must align ourselves fully with the will of God. Christ is returning for a church that is without spot, wrinkle, or blemish (Eph. 5:27), and that church is dynamically multicultural, multiracial, and subsequently, multidimensional. It will take a church that looks this way to accomplish the will of God on the earth.6

The effective global witness of the church is contingent upon culturally diverse Christians offering ‘their own distinctive gifts in service of the global body of Christ as it faces decisions concerning how best to “make real” the oneness of God’s people in the Spirit.’7

In short, fostering a multicultural community within your church will be beneficial, because multicultural churches are an outworking of the gospel.

ii. Multicultural churches cultivate mutual edification

A second benefit of fostering a multicultural church is the prospect of mutual edification when Christian cultures interact. According to Lewis-Giggetts and Mason Okubo, when contemplating cultural diversity in the church, well-meaning Christians may find themselves in regrettable extremes of either scepticism or naïve denial. One side believes that since people naturally gather in homogeneous ethnic groups, churches ought not be different to this. This leads to the prevalence of different monoethnic churches (Asian, black, white, etc.) and scepticism towards the notion of a culturally diverse church.

Conversely, other seemingly open-minded Christians are ‘colour-blind’, often claiming that racial difference ought not be a factor at all in the church. Undoubtedly, someone’s claim to not recognise colour in someone else could be interpreted as flattery—the mantra ‘colour-blind is colour-kind’ even appeared in a contemporary sitcom I watched this week. However, to not recognise or acknowledge someone’s culture, in essence, is to not see them. It is a denial of a large portion of someone’s identity.8 Either of these extremes is to be avoided.

Fighting cultural blind spots

A sincere fostering of a multicultural church is mutually edifying for believers, since it ensures that our own cultural biases, blind spots, ethnocentrism, and bigotry are challenged and corrected in love. Manuel Ortiz rightly holds that it is only through a pursuit of multicultural ministry that ‘Christians [learn to] repent of their ungodly views and feel a fresh desire to learn from each other, declaring their need for their brothers and sisters.’9

Likewise, for those pursuing Christian academia, Jeffrey Greenman cautions Anglo theologians from relying exclusively on Western perspectives on the Bible and theology, since these by themselves ‘cannot satisfy the global church’s search for truth and faithful service.’ His solution, then, is for Anglos to humbly turn to their global family in Christ, which is increasingly present ‘literally next door’ to us in the community, recognising them sincerely as ‘brothers and sisters as servants, as co-laborers and fellow pilgrims’.10

In short, fostering a multicultural community within your church will be beneficial, because multicultural churches cultivate mutual edification.

iii. Multicultural churches contribute to church viability

A third benefit of fostering a multicultural church relates to the pragmatic viability of the church community. In her thesis, Meewon Yang claims that multicultural churches in culturally diverse contexts are necessary for the ongoing viability of the church. She holds that Anglo-Australian churches which remain monocultural are at an increasing risk of becoming unsustainable, since the context around them is increasingly becoming culturally diverse. In other words, for a church to choose not to pursue a multicultural vision is to inadvertently pursue a church that ministers to an increasingly declining demographic. A reluctance from leaders to culturally transform monocultural Anglo-Australian churches will not only distance themselves from the community they are desiring to reach, but will forgo plentiful opportunities for friendship and mission.11

Looking at these cross-cultural opportunities right outside our church doors, we can look to figures like Paul, to be inspired by his gospel engagement with his context:12

¹⁹ Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. ²⁰ To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. ²¹ To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. ²² To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. ²³ I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19–23)

The importance of deliberate change

Of course, none of this is to suggest that change is easy. Brouwer and others notice that churches will rarely become more multicultural simply because their context has developed and diversified over time. For this reason, culturally diverse churches will tend to be either newer establishments that were founded with the goal of being ethnically diverse, or else they will be older churches which have made conscious endeavours to better reflect the cultural diversity of their local context. But the effort is worth it. Given the cultural context of Australia is becoming increasingly diverse, fostering a multicultural church will remain beneficial for the ongoing viability—or indeed the vitality—of that parish.

In short, fostering a multicultural community within your church will be beneficial, because multicultural churches contribute to church viability.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

We’ve looked at three benefits of fostering a multicultural church, and I’m certain there are more. The church in this age will always exist in a context with at least some degree of cultural diversity, therefore church leaders and members alike should rejoice at the ever-increasing opportunities to reach the global mission field outside their doorstep.

In part two, we will consider five common approaches towards fostering a multicultural church. Read it here.

Of David. A psalm.

¹ The LORD says to my lord:

“Sit at my right hand
    until I make your enemies
    a footstool for your feet.”

² The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
    “Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
³ Your troops will be willing
    on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
    your young men will come to you
    like dew from the morning’s womb.

⁴ The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.”

⁵ The Lord is at your right hand;
    he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
⁶ He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
    and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
⁷ He will drink from a brook along the way,
    and so he will lift his head high. (Psalm 110:1–7)

Have you ever been shocked by how much something is worth? Has the value of something ever left you speechless?

Disney Adventures

I had an interesting experience last year during a COVID lockdown. Perhaps like me, you found yourself spending some time cleaning through old, unused things around the house. And after doing some digging, I came across this box filled with my old childhood Disney magazines. There was a lot of them, like, 135 of them!

And I’m thinking to myself: ‘Geez, I don’t want these. And they are just collecting dust and taking up space.’ And so I hefted them over to the recycle bin. But then I paused. I wondered, ‘I wonder if anyone will want these?’ And so I took them all out of the box, and instead of throwing them in the bin, I arranged them in date order and started taking photos. I mean, what have I got to loose? At the end of the day, if no one wants them, that’s fine—I was going to recycle them anyway.

But to my surprise, in less than a month, every single one was sold! Every… single… one. Clearly others saw value in something I had overlooked.

I wonder what you have lying around at home which is unexpectedly valuable? Now, to be clear, the reason I’ve mentioned all this is not because I’m suggesting you go and make a profit selling your things on Gumtree. No, I’ve started this way, because Psalm 110 is one I suspect many of us have metaphorically sitting in a cupboard or a box, collecting dust.

Psalm 110 is Weird

And I get it. Compared with ‘The LORD is my shepherd’ (Psalm 23:1), Psalm 110 is a bit weird. It doesn’t seem to make sense. It’s got ‘dew from the morning’s womb’—whatever that means. And some obscure Bible name starting with ‘M’. It sounds oppressive and violent to our modern cultural ears. My guess is you’re not going to find too many motivational posters at Koorong with Psalm 110 on it.

So what do we do with this weird psalm? Are you tempted to chuck it out? Well before you do, like my old magazines, it’s probably worth checking if others can see some value that might have overlooked.

Psalm 110 has ‘Gone Viral’

And what becomes clear very quickly, is out of all the Old Testament books, the New Testament authors quote the book of Psalms the most frequently. Then if you drill down one more level: Which Psalm is quoted the most in the New Testament? The answer: Psalm 110!

Is that surprising for you? It certainly was for me. Out of all the books and chapters of the Old Testament, this is the one the New Testament used the most! It’s the biblical version of ‘going viral’!

As Justin Dillehay expresses, for the New Testament writers, this messianic psalm was ‘highly significant for their understanding of [who] Jesus [was] … Few psalms are as influential for New Testament writers; none is as often quoted.’1 Clearly they could all see the immense value that we might miss.

The Unexpected Treasure of Psalm 110

Over the years, the more and more I come back to Psalm 110, I’ve come to realise the unexpected treasure that this psalm is. And my hope and prayer is that if you don’t already, you would come to see the immense value of this psalm too, both for our understanding of Jesus, but also what difference this makes for us personally in our day-to-day walk with him.

So I hope you’re excited to jump into Psalm 110! To give you an idea of where I’m going, first we’re going to spend some time zooming into verses 1 and 4, and work out why they’re so both important for our understanding of Jesus. And then with that in our minds, I want to spend some space considering how these wonderful verses can make a massive difference for our day-to-day walk with Jesus. Because they do.

And I’m not gonna lie, we’re going to have to do a bit of thinking along the way. I’m imagining one of those scenes of crime scene detectives trying to solve a case, with a whole bunch of string and newspaper clippings. It might make your head hurt a little, but Psalm 1:2–3 says a spiritual workout in God’s word is good for us. I believe the payoff will be worth it—trust me.

1. THE KING’S KING (PSALM 110:1)

Of David. A psalm.

¹ The LORD says to my lord:

“Sit at my right hand
    until I make your enemies
    a footstool for your feet.” (Psalm 110:1)

There seems to be a lot going on in just one verse here. I wonder what word or phrase stands out for you? Did you notice that there’s quite a few characters in this scene?

There’s the author of the psalm, David. And then there’s the LORD, and then there’s ‘my Lord’, and finally there’s a bunch of enemies being turned into an ottoman. What’s happening here?

Textural Context: Superscript, LORD vs Lord

There’s a couple of important background things that will help us unravel this mystery. First, if you take a look at our psalm, we seem to have a few different titles for it: ‘Psalm 110’, ‘Of David, A psalm’. Plus, possibly another heading, depending on your Bible translation: ‘Sit at My Right Hand’, ‘The Priestly King’, etc.

See the line that says: ‘Of David. A psalm’? This one is part of the original Hebrew text that makes up the psalm. These little headings are sometimes called ‘superscriptions’, and if you flick through the psalms, you’ll notice that over 60% have these at the start.

And so from this little line that’s part of the original text, we can see that King David is the author of this psalm. Jesus affirms this (Mark 12:36). This psalm takes place from David’s point of view. And that’s a really significant detail which we’ll return to in just a moment.

The second helpful thing for us to notice here in verse 1, even though the word ‘lord’ appears twice in quick succession, there’s a different Hebrew word for each. Whenever we see the word ‘LORD’ in capitals in the Old Testament, it’s always an abbreviation of the Hebrew name of our God Yahweh. But the second Lord here, is the word ʾā·ḏôn in Hebrew. And this word is a bit more broad in meaning: ʾā·ḏôn can relate to God, but it also can mean a human master, ruler or a person in authority. If you’ve ever watched Downton Abbey, think someone like Lord Grantham. He’s the master of the house, the leader of the town, he’s the boss and people answer to him. Okay, so in verse 1 we’ve got:

1. David (author)

2. Yahweh (LORD)

3. Another master or ruler too (lord)

The King’s King

This gets even more interesting, because remember that David, the author, is the King of Israel. At the time of writing this psalm, David as king was seen as the highest authority in this kingdom under God himself. And yet, somehow David—the highest Master in the land—listens into this divine conversation, and writes:

‘Yahweh, says to my Master.’ (Psalm 110:1a)

Can you see how this is a bit peculiar? David’s the enthroned king, he’s the ‘Lord’ as it were, and so we would automatically assume that God would declare this oracle to him. But it’s not about him. David is clearly not talking about himself. In this psalm, king suddenly recognises someone else as his king. This psalm is about him. This psalm is about the King’s King.

The King’s Son

And if we fast forward to the gospels, Jesus uses this same unexpectedness of Psalm 110 to stump the religious leaders. You see, in Jesus’ day, the expectation was that God would one day send a messiah; a kingly ruler; and he would be a descendant of David.

³⁵ While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? ³⁶ David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
    under your feet.”’

³⁷ David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with delight. (Mark 12:35–37)

Old vs New

The impact of Jesus’ challenge might be lost on us, because in our culture we intuitively regard the newest things to be the best things. Obviously the iPhone 13 is better than the iPhone 7, because it’s newer. But in a generational, Jewish culture like this, they thought differently. You see, for them, the older something is, the more important it is. Forget about the new, find the old thing… that’s the best.

I experienced this when I visited Jerusalem a few years ago and saw The Western Wall. The temple was destroyed by the Romans in the first century. And now, The Western Wall is the most ceremonially holy place for Jews to travel to and pray at. And this small section of retaining wall is seen as holy and significant because it’s so old, and people have been praying there for the longest time. A few years ago they opened up a ‘new and improved’ prayer area next to the old section, but hardly anyone goes to the new one. You can guess the probable reason: Why go to the new when you could go to the old?

The King’s King and Son

And so in Mark 12:35–37, Jesus uses Psalm 110 to effectively challenge to the religious leaders’ understanding. He’s essentially saying, ‘Sure, the messiah is a descendant of King David, but David wouldn’t call any mere human descendant his master. Because any descendant of David would automatically be inferior to him. They would all see David as master. And yet, David addresses this descendant as his master. How can that be?’

Jesus opens up this great mystery that the Pharisees couldn’t unravel. According to their own scriptures, their long-awaited messiah could only be someone who was somehow both David’s descendant and someone who came before him, otherwise David wouldn’t call him his master.

Jesus: The Glorious Paradox

There is only person who would ever step into this paradox:

¹⁵ John testified concerning him and exclaimed, “This was the one of whom I said, ‘The one coming after me ranks ahead of me, because he existed before me.’” (John 1:15)

In John 8, Jesus was asked by the religious leaders:

⁵³ Are you greater than our father Abraham who died? And the prophets died. Who do you claim to be?” …

⁵⁶ [Jesus answered] “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad.”

⁵⁷ The Jews replied, “You aren’t fifty years old yet, and you’ve seen Abraham?”

⁵⁸ Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:53, 56-58)

Only in Jesus do we also see the divine, eternal son of God, who existed before David, before Moses, before Abraham, before all things came to be (Colossians 1:15–17; Hebrews 1:2). He is greater than David, greater than Moses, even greater than Abraham, the first recipient of God’s kingdom promises in Genesis 12. And then 2,000 years ago, in the hometown of David, a newborn cry is heard as the promised son of David is born.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we have seen his glory. (John 1:14)

It’s a glorious tension, which continues to blow my little mind. And I hope I’m not the only one. Hillsong Young & Free expresses the magnificence of the incarnation, in their song ‘End of Days’. I wonder if you’ve heard it before. In the verses they sing:

You came to earth that You created
You walked beneath the stars You named…
Jesus Christ the Lord our God…

You authored life and wrote Yourself in
You dwelt in time that You designed
Creator lived in His creation
Completely man completely God.2

The King’s King Sits Enthroned

Of David. A psalm.

¹ The LORD says to my lord:

“Sit at my right hand
    until I make your enemies
    a footstool for your feet.” (Psalm 110:1)

In Psalm 110, the king’s king sits enthroned in the heavens, up by God’s side. And it’s clear from this psalm that he has complete conquest over all his enemies. They are under his feet (verse 1), he rules over them (verse 2), he will destroy opposing authorities (verse 5), he will cover the nations with corpses (verse 6).

This was certainly the expectation of what the promised messiah would do. In the days of the Old Testament, there were always enemies threatening the people of God: The Philistines, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and more. In the time of Jesus, people expected their messiah king to liberate God’s people from the grips of the Roman empire.

David or Violent Jesus?

If we were to conduct a quick study into the life of King David himself, this certainly sounds like the victorious, conquering rule he had (e.g. 1 Chronicles 18). But wait a second. We’ve already established that this psalm is about Jesus, not King David. And as far as I can tell, Jesus didn’t do any of those violent things.

In fact, in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught us to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43–44). He even willingly let his enemies falsely convict him and execute him (Matthew 26:62–63). Again, we’re left scratching our heads: If this is about Jesus, how can this work? There must be more to the picture. We must have overlooked something. There must be another way of looking at this. And there is.

2. THE PERMANENT PRIEST (PSALM 110:4)

In amongst all this language of conquest and defeating enemies, in verse 4, we find another mysterious declaration from God to the messianic king:

The LORD has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalm 110:4)

This King is somehow also a Priest. The King’s King is a Permanent Priest. Now these days, depending on your experience around churches growing up, when we hear the word ‘priest’ we likely have different assumptions about what that is. But in the Old Testament, the priests were quite different. And they had a very important role.

The Enemy of Sin

Right from the start of the Bible it is clear that we have a God who wants to live amongst his people (Genesis 3:8–9). But ever since the fall in Genesis 3, there has been a great enemy preventing a holy God from dwelling with humans. And that enemy is sin. It opened the floodgates for the forces of evil at work in the world and in our own hearts.

And so, priests were in the unique position of being mediators between God and his people. They were representatives of the people to God, and they were representatives from God to the people. This vital sacrificial ministry of these priests acting on behalf of the sinful Israel around them, enabled these men and women to live in fellowship with God.

But sin remained perpetually a problem for God’s people. It’s the cancer of the soul. Even the great king David, for all his military conquests, was undone by his sinful heart (2 Samuel 11:1–12:14). The man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), would eventually find himself praying in Psalm 51:10, ‘Create in me a pure heart, O God.’

For the people of God, the real enemy wasn’t really the Philistines, or the Babylonians, or the Romans. The true enemy was the force of sin and evil, which no amount of military firepower could defeat. And sin is our problem too. Left to ourselves, we’re no better than those who came before us. We need more than just a king; we need someone who can defeat the power of sin. And so, Psalm 110 declares that the messiah will not only be a conquering king. For him to truly save his people both inside and out, he will need to be a priest as well.

The Defeat of Sin

We need someone who can defeat the power of sin. And this is how the New Testament understands Jesus’ work on the cross. When Christ gave himself in our place, on our behalf, it was a victory, a triumph over the forces of evil and sin. The spiritual enemies of God were defeated. I love how Colossians 2:14–15 and Hebrews 2:14 expresses it:

¹⁴ He [Jesus] cancelled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. ¹⁵ In this way, he disarmed the spiritual rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross. (Colossians 2:14-15 NLT)

¹⁴ Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil (Hebrews 2:14)

That sounds like Psalm 110 conquest to me. And in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses Psalm 110:1 language to show how Christ will defeat the final enemy, death itself:

²⁵ For [Christ] must reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet. ²⁶ The last enemy to be abolished is death. (1 Corinthians 15:25-26)

All of a sudden, the imagery of defeating enemies in Psalm 110 becomes a bit clearer. We need someone who can defeat the power of sin once and for all. The messiah we need is both a reigning king and a perfect priest.

Multiple Titles: King and Priest

Our culture understands how someone could have two titles at once. It’s pretty normal to have two or more jobs these days. One of my friends is a lovely person who is both an Anglican Priest, and a lecturing Doctor of Engineering. These days most of us tend to have multiple roles and titles, in some form or another. But in biblical times, this was much less common. And particularly for kings and priests.

In fact, if you read 1 Samuel 13:11–14, we see how David’s predecessor, King Saul ultimately lost his crown because he was a king who tried to dabble in the ministry of a priest. You can’t have someone who is both a king and a priest. King David (and Jesus) came from the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14). And according to the Old Testament law, priests must come from the tribe of Levi. And yet, in Psalm 110, God freely declares ‘you are a king’ and ‘you are a priest’. How can this be? The plot thickens, yet again!

What’s with Melchizedek?

But notice the last line of verse 4:

“You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalm 110:4b)

Melchizedek? That’s a bit unusual. And you can imagine King David, when he hears this divine oracle… he probably sits back in his chair and starts scratching his head, ‘Melchizedek… Melchizedek… where have I heard that before?’ And he walks over to his collection of scrolls and starts reading through Genesis. Noah… the flood… Abram… Lot… and eventually he gets to Genesis 14:17–18, the only other place in the Old Testament where this name appears:

¹⁷ After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). ¹⁸ Then Melchizedek king of Salem [an abbreviation of Jerusalem] brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High. (Genesis 14:17–18)

Imagine David reading this. He looks up. ‘What did I just read? Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem… he was a priest of God Most High.’ A king who was also a priest.

Melchizedek: King and Priest

Turns out there is such a thing as a Priestly King after all. And what’s more, Melchizedek was on the scene during the days of Abraham, meaning his priesthood and kingship existed way before Abraham’s great-grandson Levi was born, and way before the Levitical priesthood (Hebrews 7:9–10).

Remember what we were considering before about how the older something is, the more important it is? In Melchizedek, not only do we have a pattern of a king and a priest together, but the fact that he also predates the Levitical priests by several generations makes his priesthood infinitely more valuable than theirs too.

And now in Psalm 110, it’s anticipating inauguration day. And God is swearing in a new leader, the messiah. He is the king’s king, and a permanent priest. He’s the trustworthy king we need. He is the faithful priest who will remain in office forever.

Hebrews 7:1–28

The author of Hebrews absolutely loves Psalm 110:4, and he beautifully brings this theme together for us:

¹⁹ … [Now] a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

²⁰ And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, ²¹ but [Jesus] became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’” 

²² Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

²³ Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; ²⁴ but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. ²⁵ Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

²⁶ Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. (Hebrews 7:19–26)

3. PSALM 110: A TREASURE FOR US

Hopefully after our deep dive into Psalm 110, you’re starting to see why this psalm was so valuable for the New Testament authors and for us today. But if all I did was just fill your head with interesting stuff, that would be a real waste. Because I truly believe that the implications of Psalm 110 can and should make a real difference in our lives. And so, I want us to now turn to considering what this means for us in our day-to-day walk with Jesus this year. I want to mention just two things now, but I’m sure there’s more.

i. Psalm 110 Reminds Us that Our God is Faithful

Psalm 110 shows us that our God is faithful. I think we’d all admit that these past couple of years have been pretty tough:

• Our churches have had to close their doors, with physical gatherings banned.

• National and international fear as a virus silently wreaks havoc on jobs and families.

• Children forced to teach themselves school.

• Trusted Christian role models falling from grace.

• World leaders wielding their power for division, distrust and violence.

• Australia’s had the worst year for family violence than it has every experienced.3

• And so many more stories and struggles that will never be told or heard.

Sometimes, we can be tempted to just lose hope, can’t we? But Psalm 110 speaks to our insecurities. We aren’t given the reasons why all these things happened, but we are reminded again and again, that we worship a God who is faithful. God can be trusted. He can be trusted to do what he says he will do.

Why? The fact that God makes a promise in Psalm 110, which see fulfilled in the pages of biblical history, is such an encouragement for me in these times of uncertainty. I love what Peter Adam says about Psalm 110:

The promise to Jesus made by God in Psalm 110… was fulfilled when God’s son became incarnate… when he died on the cross as the effective atoning priest and sacrifice, and when God raised him from death to his right hand, where he continues as a priest forever. The story of our salvation in Christ is the story of God doing what he swore he would do.4

The exhortation that Hebrews draws from Psalm 110 is grounded in the faithfulness of God, who has proved himself faithful:

²³ Let us hold on to the confession of our hope without wavering, [why?] since he who promised is faithful. (Hebrews 10:23)

ii. Psalm 110 Reminds Us What Jesus is Doing Right Now

A second thing which Psalm 110 shows us, is the answer to the question: ‘What is Jesus doing right now?’ Have you ever stopped to ask yourself that question? What is Jesus actually doing right now? So often we have such a small view of Jesus that basically reduces him to the guy who died 2,000 years ago and gives us a free pass to heaven—and that’s about it. And so often that’s how we communicate the gospel to others too. But it makes it sound like Jesus just been bludging for the past 2,000 years!

What is Jesus doing right now? Well according to Psalm 110, Jesus is currently sitting enthroned in the heavens as our high priest forever. And since God is faithful, ‘forever’ must mean include right now as well. He holds his priesthood permanently, and according to Hebrews 7:23, that means ‘he always lives to intercede for [us].’

Jesus intercedes for us

What is Jesus doing right now? He is interceding for you. Jesus himself listens to you cry out to him. He hears your gratitude. He forgives you when you bring your daily sin and failures to him. When we say that Christians have ‘a relationship with Jesus’, that’s not a cliché. It is totally and completely true. If you are a Christian, then you have a relationship with an actual person at the right hand of God, right now. How does that make you feel?

Jesus is safe and trustworthy

Maybe you don’t have many friends. Maybe you have had a history of abuse or trauma and just can’t bring yourself to trust anyone fully. Because of Psalm 110, we know that our compassionate God, through the person of Jesus provides ‘at least one real and healthy and safe relationship for each… person’.5 I think that makes a world of difference.

¹⁴ Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens—Jesus the Son of God—let us hold fast to our confession. ¹⁵ For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Therefore, let us approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in time of need. (Hebrews 4:14–16)

I urge you today (as long as it is called ‘today’) to cling to our compassionate king and priest. And know that he is for you. Jesus will never leave you, never drive you away, he is our priest and king forever. I’m so thankful for the unexpected treasure of Psalm 110, and may we continue to see its immense value for our journey with Jesus.

I invite you to treat this beautiful song as a prayer to our king and priest.

Citizens & Saints – Before The Throne

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what it means to be a multigenerational church. I’ve also recently discovered the disastrously hilarious show Nailed It! It’s essentially a cooking show where contestants with self-diagnosed mediocre baking talents attempt to recreate ludicrously complex cakes and desserts in a very short period of time. As you can imagine, the results are usually disastrous and hilarious!

Cake fails

After watching several episodes, I feel that problems arise when contestants either: (1) forget to add the necessary ingredients, or (2) don’t combine them properly or carefully enough. And believe it or not, the process of baking a cake can teach us a great deal about being a multigenerational church.

Not convinced? Intergenerational ministry expert Cory Seibel tells us how:

“The process of becoming a vibrant intergenerational church can be compared to baking a cake. In order to bake a cake successfully… combining the correct ingredients is essential. If the necessary ingredients are not mixed well, there is a good chance the cake will not hold together properly…

Similar observations can be made about multigenerational churches today. Many of us are eager to see our churches become characterized by a strong sense of cohesion between people of different generations. There are immense benefits that accompany the strengthening of intergenerational cohesion within the church. Nonetheless, the sad reality is that the experience of many churches in recent decades has been painfully similar to “cake fails.” In far too many cases, the generations have not held together well.”1

BAKING A MULTIGENERATIONAL CAKE AT CHURCH

So when baking a cake, two important things to remember:

1. Having all the right ingredients

2. Mixing these ingredients well

And so, using this analogy, being a vibrant multigenerational church looks like:

1. Welcoming all generations (i.e. Having the right ingredients), but also

2. Creating opportunities for intergenerational learning (mixing these ingredients well)

I quite like this analogy because it helps us make a massive topic easier to get our head around. (Also, every time you bake something, you’ll hopefully think about fostering a multigenerational community at your church!)

A precautionary word

Now, as a side note, just because an idea or metaphor or saying sounds interesting and it’s presented with confidence, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s biblical or wise. So we always need to turn to God’s word to see how it measures up. When considering multigenerational ministry, it evokes big questions like:

• Does God actually desire a church where all generations are present together?

• Should we instead aim for targeted church communities and groups where everyone is the same age and stage as us?

• And if we do have different generations together, does God want these different age groups have anything to do with one another?

As we explore some passages that address this, I hope you can catch the Bible’s vision of a multigenerational church and that these generations should find opportunities to learn from one another.

HAVING THE RIGHT INGREDIENTS: WELCOMING ALL GENERATIONS

So first, when we think about having the right ingredients, both the Old Testament and the New have a wonderful vision for the people of God, as one where multiple generations are gathered and welcome together.

From One Generation to Another (Psalm 145:3–7; Psalm 78:1–7; Psalm 8:2)

God’s vision throughout the Psalms is that all generations join together in worshiping him and teaching one another. I love these wonderful words from Psalm 145. Where the Psalmist proclaims:

³ Great is the LORD and most worthy of praise;
    his greatness no one can fathom.
⁴ One generation commends your works to another;
    they tell of your mighty acts.
⁵ They speak of the glorious splendor of your majesty—
    and I will meditate on your wonderful works.
⁶ They tell of the power of your awesome works—
    and I will proclaim your great deeds.
⁷ They celebrate your abundant goodness
    and joyfully sing of your righteousness. (Psalm 145:3–7)

Worship pastor John Bolin makes a great observation about this Psalm:

This passage gives us 5 activities that all generations should do together. They should commend, tell, speak, celebrate and sing. Is it just me or is that an incredible structure for one big worship service? I love how the Psalmist is so affected by this worship experience that it compels him to both internally meditate and externally proclaim.2

Passing the baton

Multigenerational ministry plays a vital role in entrusting the next generation to know the ‘praiseworthy deeds of the LORD’ (Psalm 78:4).

¹ My people, hear my teaching;
    listen to the words of my mouth.
² I will open my mouth with a parable;
    I will utter hidden things, things from of old—
³ things we have heard and known,
    things our ancestors have told us.
⁴ We will not hide them from their descendants;
    we will tell the next generation
the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD,
    his power, and the wonders he has done.
⁵ He decreed statutes for Jacob
    and established the law in Israel,
which he commanded our ancestors
    to teach their children,
⁶ so the next generation would know them,
    even the children yet to be born,
    and they in turn would tell their children.
⁷ Then they would put their trust in God
    and would not forget his deeds
    but would keep his commands. (Psalm 78:1–7)

Graham Stanton shows the multigenerational heart of the Psalmist:

Psalm 78 invites all of God’s people to take our part in the ancient relay of intergenerational faith transmission… Psalm 78:3-6 describes a great relay race of intergenerational faith transmission: our “ancestors” handed on the faith to us, then we hand on the faith to “the next generation”, our children. Looking further forward, verse six speaks of “the children yet to be born”, and then further still to “their children”. The great vision of Psalm 78 is to see the faith handed down to our children’s grandchildren!3

Multigenerational praise

Jesus himself in Matthew 21, hearing children around him praising God, turned to the Psalter and recited Psalm 8:2: ‘From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise’ (Matthew 21:16).

God’s vision throughout the Psalms is that all generations join together in worshipping him and teaching one another. And so we, as God’s people today, are to welcome and embrace people from every generation in this place. Your church community should be eager to welcome babies, boomers, retirees, students, singles, mums, dads, and everyone in between. And we need to ensure we have ministries in place that can meet these generations where they are at. We are called to participate in this multigenerational experience of worship, as we teach, praise, and celebrate God’s greatness together. How much does your Sunday gathering reflect this vision?

The Spirit Empowers a Multigenerational Church (Joel 2:28–29; Acts 2:12–18)

Through the prophet Joel, God promised that an age was coming, the age of the Holy Spirit, where the Spirit will be poured out on all generations of God’s people (Joel 2:28–29). It was a promised day when the people of God would be supernaturally empowered for this kind of multigenerational ministry.

And then many years later, on the day of Pentecost, God did as he promised. The Spirit comes. He is poured out on the church, and the world will never be the same:

¹² Amazed and perplexed, [the crowd] asked one another, “What does this mean?” …
¹⁴ Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. … ¹⁶ this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
¹⁷ “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.
¹⁸ Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy…
³⁹ The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:12–18, 39)

Men, women, old, young, even the lowly and insignificant… we see the Holy Spirit filling them and enabling them to minister to one another and edify the body of Christ. Since we too live in the age of the Spirit, this is what we should strive to see in our churches. The Spirit enables us to be a church where babies, teenagers, the elderly, pre-schoolers, parents and widows are welcome here.

We need help

But perhaps you’re sitting there thinking: ‘I like the sound of this, but I just don’t know if I’ve got what it takes to foster a church community like that.’ And if that’s you, you’re not alone. After all, it’s much easier to cluster around people like us, isn’t it? It’s easy to stick with our tribe. But welcoming others across barriers of age, ethnicity, gender, language, class… that is hard. And it doesn’t come naturally or automatically.

And I think that’s why we need the Spirit to help us. We can’t do this alone; we need God’s help. And in his goodness, he’s freely given us his Spirit, to empower us to live up to his vision of a multigenerational church. God is faithful—he is with us in this task.

MIXING INGREDIENTS WELL: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERGENERATIONAL LEARNING

To return to our baking analogy: as I’m sure you’ll know if you’ve baked before, as important as it is to have all the right ingredients, it’s not going to transform into a beautiful cake or biscuit if you don’t mix them together. You’ll end up with a weird, charred, powdery mess instead. The reason we add the eggs, the milk, the four, the sugar to the mixing bowl… is so they can be combined to form something spectacular. Something greater than the sum of its parts.

And in the New Testament, both Peter and Paul describe the church in really vivid language. Christ is at work bringing each of us together and forming us into a new family (Ephesians 2:19), a new body (1 Corinthians 12:12–27; Ephesians 5:30), a new temple (Ephesians 2:20–21; 1 Peter 2:4–5), a new kingdom (1 Peter 2:9–10), a new dwelling (Ephesians 2:22), a beautiful bride (Ephesians 5:31–32).

Ordinary people like you and I are transformed into a place where the glory of God resides and where people can experience that glory. Multigenerational churches can enable some of this transformation because they provide opportunities to learn from each other, as the generations interact with one another.

Adults Learning from Children (Mark 10:13–16; Matthew 18:1–5)

In the Gospels, we see that for Jesus, this intergenerational learning is vital for being a follower of him. Mark recounts:

¹³ People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. ¹⁴ When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. ¹⁵ Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” ¹⁶ And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:13–16)

I don’t know about you, but I find Jesus’ words remarkable. Not only do we see his heart for welcoming children as genuine followers of him, but we also see in verse 15 that us adults need to learn about following Jesus from the children around us! On another occasion in Matthew 18, Jesus makes this even clearer, saying to the adults that ‘unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 18:3).

Children as models for the kingdom

And this claim is even more striking, because as Judith Gundry-Volf notes, ‘nowhere in Jewish literature are children put forward as models for adults, and in a Greco-Roman setting [being compared] with children was highly insulting.’4

Yet in Jesus’ mind, God’s kingdom is for children just as much as it is for adults. Our children aren’t simply ‘the future of the church’, as the adage goes, they are the ‘present’ as well. And one key reason God wants his church to be multigenerational, is because adults and children each need opportunities to learn from one another:

• On the one hand, children are highly dependent on adults to be taught about Jesus and grow in their knowledge and maturity,

• And yet, us adults are to learn about the gospel from children and we grow when we become like them!

Adults and children shaping one another

Judith Gundry-Volf has done a lot of study into the way Jesus interacted with adults and children. And I love the way she expresses her findings. She writes:

[T]he Gospels teach more than how to make an adult world kinder and juster for children, and how to raise children in a Christian way for an adult world. The Gospels teach the reign of God as a children’s world, where children are the measure, rather than don’t measure up to adults, where the small are great and the great must become small… Adults need not only to shape children but to be shaped by them. And this being shaped is essential to their shaping children, but also to adults’ very relationship to Christ and their participation in the reign of God.5

Receiving ‘like a child’

Given its importance, what does it mean for adults to ‘receive the kingdom of God like a little child’? (Mark 10:15). R. T. France and James Edwards offer some wisdom:

[T]he reason the disciples were unable to appreciate the significance of children in relation to the kingdom of God is that they themselves have not yet learned to ‘receive’ it like children. Their ‘grown-up’ sense of values prevents them from being in tune with God’s value scale.6

To receive the kingdom of God as a child is to receive it as one who has no credits, no clout, no claims. A little child has absolutely nothing to bring, and whatever a child receives, he or she receives by grace on the basis of sheer neediness rather than by any merit inherent in him- or herself. Little children are paradigmatic disciples, for only empty hands can be filled.7

We need a multigenerational church, because it helps each generation recognise our own blind-spots, and together grow to become more like Christ. Just as a cake won’t work if the ingredients aren’t mixed well, we not only need to have all the generations present our church, but be prepared to humbly learn from one another in love. The church is enriched when all generations are heard.

Old and Young, Teaching and Learning (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14–15; 2:1–2; 1 Timothy 4:12)

But it’s not just the adults and children paradigm. In the New Testament we have Timothy. As the Apostle Paul is writing to him in 1 and 2 Timothy, and we find that Timothy’s faith has been greatly shaped by those generations older than him:

^1:5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also. (2 Timothy 1:5)

^2:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, ¹⁵ and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:14–15)

Timothy would certainly not be where he was without the formation he received from those older than him. But at the same time, the young adult Timothy is urged to shape the older generations in their faith and living, and promote a culture of intergenerational learning:

^2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. ² And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. (2 Timothy 2:1–2)

^4:12 Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity. (1 Timothy 4:12)

Timothy’s story is one of being both a multigenerational learner, and a multigenerational teacher. Old and young, teaching and learning together. Shaping and being shaped. This multigenerational vision is God’s will for us too.

EXPERIMENTATION AND MESS

When we’re baking, the fun is often in the experimentation. Let’s be willing to experiment with new ways of combining these generational ingredients. Graham Stanton has done some excellent work around children and youth ministry, and he offers an intuitive way of imagining what possibilities there are for intergenerational learning at church:8

By picking any two combinations of generations, we can ask:

• What might this generation be able to teach the other? For example:

  • What might children teach young adults?

  • What might babies be able to teach teenagers?

  • Teenagers teaching adults?

  • Teenagers learning from elders?

• How can I create opportunities for this intergenerational learning to take place?

Embrace the Mess!

Of course, mixing ingredients can get messy sometimes. What’s that old saying? ‘You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.’ I have a vivid memory of attending at an all-ages service years ago, and one of the toddlers decided to use the ‘Greeting of the Peace’ time to come forward do shots of all the communion juice cups! Combining generations can get messy sometimes, our sensibilities may get offended from time to time.

But I say, considering what’s at stake, let’s embrace the mess. The saviour that we worship willingly humbled himself into the mess of our world, in order to bring us to God (Philippians 2:6–8; 1 Peter 3:18). Christ made a great personal sacrifice for our sake, and we’re called to do that for the sake of others (Philippians 2:3–5; 1 Peter 2:21). So let’s embrace the mess.

Keep the mess safe

And of course, there’s a big difference between being messy and being unsafe—both in cooking and in intergenerational ministry. 1 Timothy 5:1–2 exhorts us that when relating to those older and younger than us, we must do so ‘with absolute purity’. At least in the Anglican Diocese where I serve, with so many of us having recently competed Safe Ministry Training, we as a church organisation are excellently situated to imagine and embrace fresh opportunities for intergenerational learning, all conducted in a safe and life-giving way.

Sure, mixing generations can get messy, but when done well, and with Christ’s love and care, we will come to hear stories like one my friend’s, who returned to church after encountering the sense of belonging that both her children and parents both experienced at their church. Together, let us foster multigenerational communities in our churches, where people of all ages are welcomed. Let’s be a church where all generations would feel they belong and have a place here. And let’s embrace opportunities to learn from those older and younger than us. This multidimensional body is the church that God delights in, and may his Spirit empower us to be a part of it.

When I was back in school, I remember loving the song ‘Feel’ by Robbie Williams.1 I had it on a CD and my family used to love listening to it blaring really loud on our stereo system, and feeling the floor shake when it got to the chorus!

The song itself tells a journey of someone who is restless, and the chorus begins with an evocative lyric that echoes the deep longing of the human heart. He sings:

‘I just wanna feel, real love’ – Robbie Williams

Real Love and COVID-19

As I write this, COVID-19 restrictions have been putting us in and out of lockdowns for over a year now. This season of lockdowns, quarantines, testing, vaccine delays, and constant disruptions to long-anticipated plans have been really, really tough for many of the people I know. Amongst the stresses of job security, staying infection-free, and working and churching from home, one father puts it aptly:

‘One of the most difficult aspects of this virus is the way it separates us’2

One of the things I’ve missed the most is being able to hug my family. Being able to embrace my friends. And I know for some people, the separation caused by this virus has meant that you will never get the chance to embrace your parent or child or friend again.

It’s heart-breaking. Are you feeling it too?

I just wanna feel, real love…

If that’s where you are at today, I believe God wants to minister to your heart through his word. I believe God wants to show you real love. I believe God wants you to feel his real love.3 And if you want to grasp the depths of God’s love for you, there’s no better place than Romans chapter 8. Romans would have to be some of the most magnificent words ever written down. And the end of chapter 8 are my favourite verses in the whole Bible—I’m not kidding.

The Apostle Paul reflects on the amazing work of God in the life and saving ministry of Jesus. He reflects on the power of the Holy Spirit in confirming the adoption of you and I as children of God. He thinks about what all this means for our daily experience as Christians. Then Paul asks: ‘What, then, shall we say in response to these things?’ (Romans 8:31a)

What does Paul say? Four things:

1. God is for us (8:31)

First Paul asks: ‘If God is for us, who can be against us?’ (Romans 8:31b)

Can you believe that? What the gospel means for our lives is that ultimately God is for his people. The creator and sustainer of the world is for us… the God of the universe is for you! And if God is for us, everything else that rails against us in our everyday lives, as powerful as they may appear, everything else, even COVID-19, is ultimately powerless by comparison.

We have a God who is for us! Do you feel that?

2. God is generous to us (8:32)

Have a look at Romans 8:32:

‘He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?’

In other words, since God has already done the impossibly hard thing in giving up his own beloved son for us, there’s nothing else he can’t do for his people! God as our adoptive father is generous to us and wants us to approach him as freely as a child approaches a kind father (Romans 8:14–17).

Our God is lavishly generous toward us! Do you feel that?

3. God will not condemn us (8:33–34)

Paul poses another question in Romans 8:33–34:

‘Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.’

If you are feeling like you aren’t worthy enough to be loved by God; if you are feeling anxious that you will get to the end and God will turn around and reject you; listen to these words! In Mike Bird’s view, Paul is saying:

‘The only one [even] capable of condemning us is Christ Jesus. But he has died, risen and ascended for [you] and is now interceding on [your] behalf… he’s not going to turn around the next minute and condemn [you]!4

And so, the verdict of Romans 8:1 stands firm: ‘There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’! Do you feel that?

4. Nothing can separate us from the love of God (8:35–39)

In light of all the above, Paul asks the big question: ‘Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?’ (Romans 8:35a)

‘Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’

Who or what can possibly separate us from being loved by Jesus? Will COVID-19, unemployment, sickness, death, distress, our foolish decisions, the secular government, the evil of others, our own weakness separate us from experiencing the real love of Christ? NO! Nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord!

I just wanna feel, real love…

Is your heart singing: ‘I just wanna feel, real love’? The wonderful news is: YES! Yes, you can feel real love, and it’s lavishly available to us in Christ! American Pastor Tim Keller once wrote about the love God offers to us. He said:

‘To be loved but not known is comforting but superficial.  To be known and not loved is our greatest fear.  But to be fully known and truly loved is, well…  It is what we need more than anything.’5

Doesn’t it just blow your mind that God knows everything there is to know about you, warts-and-all, and yet he loves you deeper and more completely than anyone else can? And in Christ Jesus, we are loved like this!

I’m reminded of the final words of the hymn When I Survey the Wonderous Cross. It ends with:

‘Love so amazing, so divine; Demands my soul, my life, my all.’

From God, we have an amazing, divine, real love, that demands all our energy, all our affection; all our lives in return.

Do you feel that love?

God, our loving keeper

In 2020, the Christian world heard of the passing of much-loved theologian and Anglican churchman J. I. Packer. Packer himself reflects on the comfort of Romans 8 in his book Knowing God. I thought it would be fitting to conclude with his words that particularly encouraged me when I first read them, many years ago. He writes:

‘God is adequate as our keeper. ‘Nothing… can separate us from the love of God,’ because the love of God holds us fast… Your faith will not fail while God sustains it; you are not strong enough to fall away while God is resolved to hold you.’6

However the coming years of COVID pan out, be encouraged. Embrace the real love that God offers to us in Christ, and let’s keep on persevering and walking with him.

‘For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ (Romans 8:38–39)

The theology of baptism expressed in The Book of Common Prayer (BCP) has been likened to the ‘chief theological controversy of the early and mid-nineteenth century’.1 For Evangelical Anglicans, the central contention that conversion occurs at the time of one’s personal faith in Christ is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with statements in the BCP baptism liturgy that declared an infant to be ‘regenerate’ by the end of the service, well before they had opportunity to express such faith.2 Consequently, for Bebbington, that this wording remains in the BCP1662 infant baptism liturgy, is something of an ‘anomaly’ which continues to ‘trouble… Evangelical Anglicans’ to this day.3

This essay examines and critiques the theology of baptism expressed through words and shape of the baptism service in the BCP1552 and BCP1662. I have structured my argument into two main sections: First, we examine the shape and words of the baptism service itself. Second, we evaluate the BCP theology of baptism in two contentious areas: (1) The so-called ‘anomaly’ of baptismal regeneration; and (2) The validity of vicarious repentance and faith.

Upon evaluation, I believe that while the vocabulary used in the infant baptism service appears to communicate a theology at odds with the Evangelical Anglicanism, the shape of the service, validates the Evangelical place of repentance, faith and regeneration. In other words, I believe the theology of baptism expressed in the words and shape of the 1552 and 1662 service is consistent with that of Evangelical Anglicanism, though it is not without issues.

As may be surmised from the above statements, the Evangelical Anglican tradition will form the basis of my critique of the BCP baptism service.4 Since the Anglican Church upholds the theological legitimacy of paedobaptism, our discussion will concentrate on the baptismal liturgy itself.5 We will be primarily examining the 1552 and 1662 versions of The Book of Common Prayer, though when necessary, reference will be additionally be made to the BCP1549 and BCP1559 editions.6 Finally, we will be examining the BCP baptism liturgy on its own merit, rather than later debates in the 1840s.7

A. SHAPE AND WORDS OF 1552 & 1662 BAPTISM SERVICE

In this first section we examine the shape and words of the baptism services themselves. By means of introduction, I must point out that the shape and words of the public baptism service in both the BCP1552 and BCP1662 are virtually identical to one another, with only minor modifications to the liturgy between the two. I will make mention of any noteworthy differences as we proceed.8

In terms of the formation of the baptism liturgy, the BCP1552 ceremony was shorn of the exorcism, triple-immersion and chrism anointing present in its 1549 predecessor.9 By contrast, the BCP1662 liturgy retained virtually all of the shape and words of 1552, with the most obvious change being the addition of a new baptismal rite to ‘such as are of Riper Years’ for those who weren’t baptised during the interregnum.10

Baptism service shape and liturgy

The elements of both the BCP1552 and BCP1662 public baptism services form a mirrored shape that I summarise as follows:

__ (i) Necessity of baptism and regeneration,

____ (ii) Infants as embraced recipients of baptism,

______ (iii) Repentance and faith,

____ (iv) Infants embraced as they receive baptism,

__ (v) Declaration of regeneration.

(i) Necessity of baptism and regeneration: exhortation and opening prayers

The initial exhortation is centred upon the words of Christ in John 3:3–7, beseeching the congregation to pray that God would mercifully receive the child in baptism.11 Alongside this, the explicit language of ‘regeneration’ first occurs in the opening exhortation. While Carson cautions against postulating an explicit relationship between water baptism and spiritual regeneration from John 3:5, the BCP certainly sees the two as connected entities, as did the early church.12

The two prayers that follow contain various scriptural echoes, presenting safe passages through waters to establish a covenant motif for the congregation: the protection of Noah and his family in the ark, the safe passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, the baptism of Christ, and the promises of God.13 Upon this basis, the second prayer is an appeal for God to ‘give now unto us that ask’, that he would grant ‘remission of [the infant’s] sins by spiritual regeneration’.14 The shape of these elements rests the effectiveness of the baptismal rite upon God’s grace and the faithful prayer of the congregation.15

(ii) Infants as embraced recipients of baptism: Scripture reading, exhortation and prayer

After reading Mark 10:13–16, the minister exhorts the congregation, reasoning that since Christ, ‘by his outward gesture and deed… declared his good will toward [children]’, ‘he will likewise favourably receive this present Infant; that he will embrace him with the arms of his mercy’.16

It is remarkable that this Markan pericope forms the basis of Cranmer’s apologia for infant baptism, particularly as it is clearly speaking of blessing children, not baptising them.17 Brooks goes as far as calling the BCP treatment of Mark 10 an example of eisegesis.18 At the very least, we must concede that ‘the wording of the narrative establish[es] a positive context in which to consider the question of infant baptism’.19 The exhortation is followed by prayer that God would grant this, using the same theological language as the exhortation.20

(iii) Profession of faith: preamble to sureties, vicarious repentance, faith and vow

What follows is then a profession of faith, where the candidate’s sureties respond to a demand of repentance, an affirmation of faith, and a desire to be baptised into the Christian faith. The BCP1662 additionally calls for a vow of Christian obedience.21

Strictly speaking, in the wording of the liturgy, Children make this profession by their sureties, rather than parents make profession on behalf of their children.22 This conveys a heightened sense that the rite belongs not to the family, but to the church. According to Motyer, the vows in the service represent a further parallel with the covenant motif: to renounce, believe and keep.23 The proxy nature of these vows is an issue which demands further examination, therefore we will discuss the validity of vicarious repentance and faith in the second section of this essay.

(iv) Infants embraced as they receive baptism: prayers, immersion and sign of the cross

After the candidate makes their declaration (by their sureties), the Priest prays that God would grant the results of their profession, followed by a second prayer pertaining to the forthcoming baptism.24 The immersion itself is a straightforward affair: the child is first taken up into the arms of the Priest (cf. Mark 10:16), is named, then dipped (or sprinkled) while the Priest recites the familiar words of Matthew 28:19: ‘N. I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen’.25 Immediately after this, the Priest makes a cross upon the child’s forehead, stated to be a ‘token’ of their declared allegiance to the crucified Christ and to the church.26

(v) Declaration of regeneration: declaration, prayers and closing exhortation

The liturgy of the final section contains two further references to regeneration; first, to the congregation: ‘Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church’; and then in the second prayer: ‘it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit’.27 These confident declarations prompted some commentators to pronounce an ex opere operato theology of baptism in the BCP.28 This major doctrinal issue of baptismal regeneration will be critiqued in the second section of this essay.29

The baptism liturgy concludes with a congregational declaration, a recitation of The Lord’s Prayer, followed by a final prayer of thanks for God’s work in the baptised infant.30 The final element in the service is a closing exhortation made to the Godparents, reminding them of their ongoing responsibility for the development and growth of the child. Again, the language used makes clear that the child made the profession:

‘Ye must remember that it is your parts and duties to see that this Infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise and profession he hath here made by you.’31

The BCP1662 then converts the final 1552 rubric into a spoken command to the Godparents, stating that they must bring the child to be confirmed as soon as they are able to take this profession upon themselves.32

The shape of the baptism service

We have seen that the baptism service follows a deliberate shape: What begins with the need for regeneration, concludes with the declaration that the candidate is regenerate.33 Christ’s welcome of infants is defended and affirmed, this is then mirrored through the gestures and words of the Priest. And these are all drawn together in the centre as a profession of repentance and faith is made.34

The language of baptism in the BCP

The language used to describe baptism in the BCP has been concerning for some writers. Upon closer examination, however, it is clear that what the Articles, Catechism and services state about the meaning of baptism is consistent with the teaching of Scripture.35 Stott helpfully organises the data into four categories, which we will briefly outline below.

(i) Baptism signifies union with Christ

The final prayer in the baptism service states clearly that the candidate is united in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.36 Motyer notes that the relationship between baptism and union in Christ’s death and new life in Romans 6:3–4 was ‘complete justification for the statement in the Prayer Book concerning Baptism and Regeneration… At the very point where even some Anglicans themselves have uneasy consciences, the Book of Common Prayer is merely echoing the words and formulations of Holy Scripture’.37

(ii) Baptism signifies the forgiveness of sins

The liturgy regularly refers to the ‘forgiveness’/‘remission’/‘release from’/‘death to’/’washing away’ of sin.38 There are clear scriptural links between baptism and these concepts (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Titus 3:5).39

(iii) Baptism signifies the gift of the Spirit

Before the profession of faith, the Priest prays, ‘Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant’.40 Again, these concepts are linked in Scripture (Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:38–39).41

(iv) Baptism signifies incorporation into God’s people

The closing section of the liturgy announces that the child is ‘grafted into the body of Christ’s Church’, being incorporated into God’s people.42 The union of the church around baptism is clear from Ephesians 4:4–6. To further understand the function of baptism, many advocates of paedobaptism appeal to covenantal theology, but this curiously finds ‘no verbal support in the liturgical text’.43 However, even though the specific language of ‘covenant’ is absent from the articles and baptism liturgy, the permeation of allusions and echoes of God’s covenant dealing (as mentioned prior) are ‘very present and very evident’, according to Motyer. He concedes that the ‘absence of the explicit use of the word ‘covenant’ is, of course, greatly to be regretted’.44

As we have seen, while the language employed in the liturgy to describe baptism remains concerning for some writers, what the baptism services state about the meaning of baptism is consistent with the teaching of Scripture. However, both the pervasiveness of ‘regeneration’ language and the centrality of a vicarious profession of faith in the liturgy demand further examination before we can adequately evaluate the BCP theology of baptism.

B. CRITIQUE OF BAPTISM THEOLOGY

We have examined the shape and words of the baptism service itself. In this section, we will evaluate the BCP theology of baptism in two contentious areas: First, we evaluate the so-called ‘anomaly’ of baptismal regeneration in the BCP, which I argue is consistent with Evangelical doctrine when understood correctly. Second, we determine the validity of vicarious repentance and faith, concluding that the concept is supported by Scripture, and therefore valid.

1. The so-called ‘anomaly’ of baptismal regeneration

Ryle rightly observes that the BCP1662 language implying baptismal regeneration is something that troubles the ‘minds of many true Christians in the Church of England’.45 Again, for Bebbington, the language proves to be something of an ‘anomaly’.46 That this concept was troublesome is evidenced by the complete removal of regeneration language in Australian updates to the baptism liturgy.47 Motyer, however, is quick to challenge a simplistic interpretation of the liturgy:

‘It would be wrong, for example, to conclude in a superficial way that, because the Service includes the words, ‘seeing now that this child is regenerate’, therefore the Church of England teaches automatic and invariable regeneration in baptism. Evidence improperly used ceases to be valid evidence on the point.’48

Even so, the BCP liturgy appears deliberate in bringing baptism and regeneration together.49 We must therefore determine the relationship taught by the BCP between the rite and the effect of baptism.

Ex opere operato view

Demarest believes the BCP explicitly teaches ex opere operato baptism—the view that the sign always conveys the gift.50 For Cranmer, this Roman Catholic view of baptism meant that all baptised persons are regenerate, particularly infants.51 By the 1540s, Cranmer, influenced by Augustinian theology, rejected the concept of a sacramental rite conferring grace without faith.52

The baptismal account of Simon Magus (Acts 8:13–24) is germane to our discussion, as Scripture itself depicts a baptism which conferred no spiritual advantage to Simon at all.53 ‘If faith is necessary for salvation, then the unbelieving candidate is not saved through baptism’, as Stott argues.54 Accordingly, Article XXVII states that only those who receive baptism ‘rightly’ are grafted into the church, meaning that ex opere operato baptism is not taught in the BCP.55

A sign which seals blessings

Article XXVII just referenced describes the Anglican position on baptismal regeneration: ‘… they that receive Baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed’.56 In other words, the sign not only signifies the gift, but seals (pledges) it in such a way as to convey not the gift itself, but a title to it.57

Following the Old Testament relationship between rite and blessing in circumcision, ‘baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign’, meaning that if and when the baptised person believes, they will inherit the blessings which are entitled to them. According to Stott, the baptised person then may receive this gift by faith—which is expressed at a point not dependent of the timing of them rite itself. ‘The receiving of the sign and seal, and the receiving of the blessings signified, are not necessarily (or even normally) simultaneous’.58 Stott continues:

‘It is possible to receive the sign before the gift, as is usual in the case of infants, or to receive the sign after the gift, as is usual in the case of adults.’59

The gift, therefore, is not tied to the time of the sacrament’s administration.

Nevertheless, if baptism doesn’t technically confer grace, why does the BCP liturgy use words that suggest that it does?60 The answer is simply that the only baptism performed in the BCP, is that of a professing believer (whether adult or infant); it never envisages baptising unbelievers.61 The assumption in any Christian liturgy must be that participants are Christians. Ryle writes: ‘A Liturgy for unbelievers and unconverted men would be absurd, and practically useless!’62 The BCP, then, describes the ideal, where the members of the church are presupposed to be ‘in reality what they are in profession’, and the shape of service means that the statements of regeneration are made after the profession of repentance and faith (albeit done vicariously).63

And so we can conclude, the BCP assumes the separation of the rite from the grace signified, and correctly announces regeneration after repentance and faith. This teaching is consistent with Evangelical doctrine, though frustratingly it requires meticulous study for this distinction to be maintained.

2. The validity of vicarious repentance and faith

Obijole believes the crux of the controversy around infant baptism, is the appeal to the vicarious nature of professed repentance and faith.64 Upon examination, though this method of profession is controversial, we will see that vicarious faith is supported by Scripture, and therefore can be valid when performed rightly.65

As we have established, the infant baptism service is centred around the required profession of repentance and faith. The Catechism pre-empts the inevitable objection: ‘Why then are Infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform [repentance and faith]?’66 The Catechism then simply states that parents do this because infants cannot answer for themselves.67 It might frustrate us that no further justification is given for this ‘proxy-faith’, but the BCP sees the problem as merely ‘administrative, and the office of god-parenthood is offered as the solution’.68

The strongest evidence supporting the validity of vicarious faith is the witness of Scripture itself, where we find numerous accounts describing healing and forgiveness, each being granted through the petition and faith of someone else (Matthew 8:5–13; 15:21–28; Luke 5:17–26; 8:49–56; John 4:46–54).69 In these examples, it is remarkable that three instances are of a parent making a faithful petition to Christ on behalf of their child. Legitimate vicarious faith is both recognised as valid and is even praised by Christ (Matthew 8:10; 15:28). Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 7:14, the Apostle Paul supports vicarious faith, where the faith of a parent is unambiguously said to sanctify their children (and partner).

The efficacy of the baptismal rite, therefore, rests on genuine conversion amongst the parents, all being underpinned by God’s grace in bringing about repentance and faith.70 ‘The right of Christian infants to baptism is only through their parents.’71 Stott’s conclusion highlights the crux of our discussion:

‘Our task [as ministers] is to be faithful in teaching the significance of baptism and the conditions of its efficacy; and then not to baptize any but those who profess to be penitent believers, and their children.’72

CONCLUSION

This essay examined and critiqued the theology of baptism expressed through the words and shape of the BCP baptism services. I have argued that the theology of baptism expressed in the words and shape of the 1552 and 1662 services is consistent with that of Evangelical Anglicanism. The shape of the service highlights the importance of genuine repentance and faith, before regeneration is declared. The language and allusions used throughout the liturgy are consistent with Scripture’s teaching on baptism. The blessings attached to the rite are conditional, not inevitable. And genuine vicarious repentance and faith by sureties is supported by Scripture.

Unfortunately, as has become clear in the second section, developing an Evangelical defence of baptismal regeneration and vicarious faith in the BCP is possible, though I must concede that the theological complexity of such a task is tedious and I fear that the BCP liturgy may be at risk of killing the simplicity and magnificence of Christian baptism; much ‘like a joke that stops being funny after you have explained it in too much detail’.73

During our drive to church each Sunday, my wife and I regularly find ourselves tuning into our local Christian radio station. During this time, there’s this segment where they broadcast a collection of praise and worship songs, followed by a ‘relevant’ sermon, chosen from a pool of local churches.

While I do think this is an innovative initiative for the growth of the gospel, after listening to these sermons week-after-week for some time now, it’s revealing an ironic and concerning trend in today’s preaching: The desire to be relevant. Don’t believe me? Here’s some of the most recent broadcasted sermons:

• ‘How to live a Life of Influence’

• ‘How to be a Courageous Person’

• ‘How to find Security in an Insecure World’

• ‘Being Successful in Singleness’

• ‘Your Role in God’s Plan’

• ‘How to Grow in your Relational Health’

• ‘Praying when you’re having a Bad Day’

• ‘Living the Refreshed Life’

• ‘How All Things Will Work Together for Your Good’

Now, don’t get me wrong, as a preacher I am all for giving messages which are accessible, applicable, relatable and relevant. What concerns me about this list is what’s not on there: simple, expository, Biblical sermons. There is this underlying assumption in much of today’s preaching that for a message to be ‘relevant’, it must be centred around an everyday part of life: relationships, money, career, anxiety, God’s (most probably positive) plan for you, relationships, disappointment, children, relationships (again).

And if we compare the above against messages like: ‘1 Corinthians 6 (part 2)’, ‘John 12:12-19’ and ‘Leviticus 21’, it’s obvious which of the two groups come across as irrelevant, dry and boring. And it shows in preaching programs of many churches today. I know of a pastor who visited 11 churches during a recent sabbatical. He wrote:

‘In only one of the 11 weeks did the preacher present the Bible expositorily… [that is, using] the Bible verses as the basis for what they present. Only one person did this. Many of them made passing references to the Bible. Two of the speakers told their story the whole time and barely even acknowledged the Bible at all.’1

Ironically, it seems that too many of today’s preachers are ditching solid Bible preaching in favour of ‘relevant’ topical life-skills (backed up with a verse or two).

And I’m sick of it. I’m sick of ‘relevant’ preaching.

But this article is not a rant – the opposite, in fact. Put simply: I believe there is a better way of being relevant. A deeper, more powerful and (dare I say) more Biblical way. And it all starts with expository preaching.

What is expository preaching? American pastor Bryan Chapell describes it like this:

‘It is this simple: the meaning of the message is the message of the passage. The meaning of the message (or the sermon) is the message of the passage. So, what the passage means is what the sermon will be about.’2

I firmly believe this method of preaching to be profoundly relevant in today’s churches for five reasons. Here they are:

1. Expository preaching is relevant because it allows God to change hearts

God can and does change hearts through his word. And since expository preaching revolves around scripture, the most helpful thing to do here is to give you a sense of scripture’s view of itself. I could give you many passages that demonstrate God at work through his word. Here are a couple:

Isaiah 55:11:

‘my word that goes out from my mouth:
    It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
    and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.’

God’s words have purpose and real power – when God speaks, things happen.

2 Timothy 3:15-17:

‘from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.’

Gary Millar in his preaching book Saving Eutychus makes the point that while it’s right to see the scriptures in terms of their ‘usefulness’, in these verses Paul is really highlighting how it is that God works:

‘How does God make us “wise for salvation”? Through the Scriptures. How does God act – when he teaches, reproves, corrects and trains us? God equips us to live for him by shaping us through his word.’3

When we let God speak through his scriptures, allowing the text to shape our preaching, we unleash its shaping power to change us and our hearers.

Hebrews 4:12-13:

‘For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.’

God himself is alive and active through scripture: it’s ‘God’s power in verbal form’.4 By his word he deeply exposes us our hearts, intentions, attitudes and souls, and by his word he skilfully and surgically changes them.

God softens hearts, saves lives and transforms them, all through the communication of his word (see above, plus Romans 10:13-17; 1 Corinthians 15:1-2; James 1:18, 21). Through expository preaching, this powerful word is proclaimed plainly and clearly.5 What could possibly be more relevant for our churches than allowing God through his Spirit-filled word to transform lives? (Hint: it’s not another message on dating)

I like how Bryan Chapell puts it:

‘Who or what alone can change the hearts of men and women? Can you do it? No, you cannot. The Holy Spirit working by and with the Word in our hearts alone can change people.’6

2. Expository preaching is relevant because it ensures God is setting the agenda for his church

We all want to be part of a church that is letting God take the lead, don’t we? Expository preaching is relevant because it does just that. Of course, those planning the preaching schedule for the coming months would have some level of understanding of what’s in the certain books and passages chosen, but a church that is devoted to regular, book-by-book expository teaching is led by God as he (through his word) determines what every sermon will be about. American pastor Timothy Keller makes an apt remark about topical messages in his book on preaching:

‘We tend to think of the Bible as a book of answers to our questions, and it is that. However, if we really let the text speak, we may find that God will show us that we are not even asking the right questions.’7

By contrast, ‘Expository preaching lets God set the agenda in an obvious and public way,’ as former principal of Ridley College Peter Adam has said.8 And this also allows for the church to move forward and not always get bogged-down in addressing every single issue that arises in congregational life. And working through sections of the Bible week-to-week also means that God is active in bringing us to address tough topics that our denomination or our pastor would normally avoid.9

3. Expository preaching is relevant because it ensures God is setting the agenda for the sermon

As a preacher, I feel the burden of passages like James 3:1 and 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. We want to know that we are preaching God’s truth and not our own musings and opinions. While the Senior pastor of Hillsong Church, Brian Houston wants all his preachers to prove their points from the Bible, expository preaching is the only way to truly know that God is endorsing your message.10 The preacher’s job is to go wherever the single passage takes you, using the logic of that passage.

Expository preaching also leaves little room for preachers returning to their own hobby-horses and pet-peeves every week. Whether it’s taking pot-shots at our culture, over-emphasising aspects of social justice, or their favourite recent ‘breakthrough work of the Spirit’; when the meaning of the text is faithfully exposed each week, it is only appropriate to bring these up if the passage invites it.11

Expository sermons, when applied properly, are always relevant to their hearers. As theologian D. A. Carson once said: ‘all true preaching is properly applied’.12 This certainly needs to be true for expository preaching (which often has the reputation of being a dreary lecture straight from a scholarly commentary). When the message of the text is applied adequately to the hearers, it will be relevant. Expository preaching done well will also always be both stylistically fresh and gospely consistent. As Gary Millar writes:

‘No two sermons should look the same or sound the same, but to careful listeners our sermons should always sound the same gospel note. They should be utterly predictable. And yet, at the same time, our sermons should be deliciously unpredictable. Why? Because we have such fantastic source material, inspired by God himself, to change people’s hearts.’13

4. Expository preaching is relevant because it demonstrates the authority of the Bible

In some senses this could be the primary case for expository preaching: it confronts people with the whole Bible as God’s authoritative, relevant word. As mentioned above, expository sermons will inevitably cover tough and challenging parts of scripture. Expository preaching demonstrates that the authority rests with God and his word, not the preacher. When we faithfully expose, explain and apply the Bible – even for tough passages – a preacher can say with confidence, ‘Do not listen because of what I say. Listen to the One for whom I speak for.’14

On the other hand, if a sermon touches only lightly on scripture, spends most of its time in stories, jokes or gimmicks, a listener could quite easily wiggle out from any tough or controversial teaching, simply concluding, ‘Well, that’s just your interpretation.’15

5. Expository preaching is relevant because it teaches the congregation to read their Bibles well

Consistent, expository preaching is relevant because it models and teaches the congregation to read their own Bibles well. It teaches them how to think through the movements of a passage and see how the main idea is built. It gives the congregation confidence that they can read and understand the plain meaning of scripture for themselves, not needing the authority of the church or savviness of the preacher to interpret it for them. It teaches hearers the nuances of different Biblical genres and styles and how they affect its meaning. Expository preaching helps church members grasp the rich ‘unity-in-diversity of the biblical revelation’ and its culmination in the person and work of Christ.16 And since the authority rests in the Bible, as the congregation grows in their knowledge of the word, they will keep the preacher accountable to the truth.

A dangerous aspect of a consistent diet of topical preaching is that it does none of the above well. The late John Stott shares his thoughts:

‘[O]ne of the dangers of taking an isolated text each Sunday is that it gives the impression that the Bible is a mere anthology of unrelated fragments, with no common themes or overall message.’17

Where to from here?

You may notice that while I have given a case that expository preaching is relevant for churches today, I haven’t gone into detail about what this should look like in practice. The reality is this will look different for each church context.

John Stott recalls that he covered the Gospel of Mark in sixty-two sermons over a period of three years! Gary Millar suggests that however we decide to tackle books of the Bible, ‘you need to move quickly enough to capture the flow of the book but slowly enough to allow people to get their heads around the details.’18

And of course, all this is not to suggest that topical preaching has no place in churches – of course it does. In fact, a topical series can be the best way of teaching certain biblical themes. But if your weekly church preaching diet is mostly topical preaching, then that’s a problem. As one person has humorously said:

‘Topical preaching is like fast food. It takes [sic] great but is not good for you. McDonald’s will make you happy and it does taste good but a steady flow of McDonald’s is not good for you… Granted, there is nothing wrong with a hamburger from McDonald’s from time to time but it should not be our diet.’19

I wholeheartedly believe that expository preaching is relevant for the church today. It allows God to change hearts through his powerful word, it ensures God is setting the agenda for his church and for each sermon, it demonstrates the authority of the Bible in a clear way, and it teaches churches how to read their Bibles well.

Will you join me in letting our God transform lives through his word?