So apart from being busy, what’s been going on? Well, the usual stuff really – finishing assignments, work and the like. Last weekend we went back to Colchester overnight, we saw AJ and Jen on Saturday afternoon and then spent the evening with A-M and Sarah. All in all, a pretty good day! Then we went to Fordham on Sunday morning, and headed back home after lunch. We did have an ulterior motive for going back to Colchester, but more on that in a couple of weeks. (It’s not very exciting really, but still… I hear that tension and excitement keeps people interested. Probably too late for that now though)

Anyway, as they say about blogs: “I have nothing to say… I say it often”. This is me saying nothing. Back to the studio.

First of all, then, here is the passage in question (1 Timothy 2:8-15):

I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

As I’ve been reflecting on this passage, I’ve been finding it more and more puzzling. It’s just not that easy to interpret! Here are a few questions I’ve come up with about Paul’s usage of Genesis (the part in bold). In no particular order:

• The reference to Adam and Eve is talking about a marriage relationship. What relationship does this have to all men and women in the church? It is true that the church is described as the household of God (2 Timothy 3:14-15), but that doesn’t preclude Paul talking about husbands and wives as opposed to men and women. The Greek words gyne and aner which are used here could be translated ‘woman / wife’ and ‘man / husband’.
• Why is Adam being formed first a reason against women having authority? The animals were formed first – does that give them authority over us? It just seems that this is an argument which is not made in Genesis. There is an argument about a woman being a ‘helper’ for man (in Genesis 2), but our Old Testament lecturer talked about that and said it’s probably not a good translation. (He also said that Genesis was not the place to fight complementarian battles).
• Why does Paul even include the reference to Eve being the one who was deceived? Surely, if this is an appeal to the created order, it wouldn’t be necessary to include this? I just cannot understand this reference if that is what it’s supposed to mean: is he saying that women are more gullible / susceptible? Clearly, both Adam and Eve were culpable at the Fall – as proved by God’s judgement in Genesis 3. What’s interesting is that in Romans 5, Paul says “sin entered the world through one man“. In other words, in another of his writings he doesn’t mention Eve at all. I can’t see why Eve being deceived should preclude women from roles in authority.

So those are my questions specifically related to Genesis and the ‘created order’. But there are a couple of other related questions:

• Is that passage in Genesis used in the same way anywhere in the Old Testament? Although there may have been a pattern of male leadership, a pattern is not the same as a command. Indeed, Deborah was a judge of Israel and I can’t see any reason given why that was a bad thing.
• This is perhaps tangential, but most people who view the 1 Timothy 2 passage as referring to women in authority and leadership in the church don’t seem to have a problem with a man serving under a woman in a secular situation. In the UK, for example, we have a Queen as the monarch. I’m curious to know, if the prohibition Paul makes is grounded in the created order, why is it not applicable to secular situations as well as church ones?

I’m also not entirely sure how this understanding of the created order fits with the final verse (‘will be saved through childbearing’), if women in general are in view.

Well, I think that’s enough for the time being. What I’d like to do in my next post (on this subject) is outline an alternative reading of 1 Timothy 2 which I think makes more sense to me. That could take some time though (watch this space…)

To be honest, I found the 12-step process quite hard: it didn’t really gel naturally with how I would ordinarily like to prepare a sermon. Some of it was useful, but some was a bit of a struggle! – so when I delivered the sermon this morning, I felt like I wasn’t completely sure if it was any good or not. Not because I think I said anything wrong, but just because it had been prepared in a different way and as such it felt a bit … unnatural.

Anyway, it seemed to go down relatively well, I had a couple of positive comments afterwards! Anyway, if you’d like to have a read of it to tell me what you think, you can download it in PDF form. Feel free to leave comments afterwards, although please be nice!

The main claim in the leaflet is that if we accept women bishops, then we will damage our understanding of the Trinity. This is what the leaflet says:

Genesis 1:27 does not teach the sameness of men and women. In fact the asymmetry of the words used point to the differentiation in the Triune God which in turn lies at the basis of the differentiation between men and women.

But if our society views men and women as having no significant differences and this is then pursued as an axiomatic principle within the Christian community, it is inevitable that our view of the nature of God will change.

So, what we see is the asymmetry between male and female relationships being a sort of picture of the asymmetry in the Godhead. He goes on:

The persons of the Trinity are equally God, yet the functions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different … It is the order within the Trinity which lies at the root of the different functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The idea is that the Son is relationally subordinate to the Father. For example, in John 14:28 Jesus says, ‘The Father is greater than I’ (much-loved but little-understood by Jehovah’s witnesses). The Son is equally God, but being relationally subordinate seeks to do the Father’s will.

As such, the consequences of denying any difference between men and women will be pretty bad. It will impact our understanding of God, and more:

If we are not careful we will end up saying that a person’s value lies in their power over other human beings, or else we will destroy the proper basis for authority in human society. The only sound basis for maintaining a real equality of human beings with the experience of social order is to be found in the biblical insistence that we are all made in the image of the Triune God.

Now, I’m not sure what I think about all this. I don’t know enough of the doctrine of God to know about relational subordination and how that plays out in human relationships. But what I’m not sure about doesn’t really relate to that per se. I’m currently doing a course at college on the Pastoral Epistles, which included looking at the infamous passage about women and authority in 1 Timothy (1 Timothy 2:8-15), which I’ll come onto in a moment.

My thoughts are currently twofold: Firstly, the differences between men and women – and I think the Bible does teach that there are differences – don’t necessarily have to be authoritative. For example, debate has been raging for many years about the usage of the Greek word kephale (head) in 1 Corinthians 11. Does it mean head as in authority, or does it mean something more like ‘source’? You will find arguments on both sides – it’s actually incredibly difficult for a layperson to evaluate. Strangely enough, most people on the complementarian side of the divide find kephale has the sense of authority; those on the egalitarian side find it means something more like ‘source’.

Secondly, relational subordination between men and women seems to be within the context of husbands and wives. To what extent does that apply within the context of church leadership? The go-to passage for this, the knock-down argument, has traditionally been that passage from 1 Timothy 2. But I’m not so sure anymore that it teaches what it has traditionally been thought to. It seems there is a plausible cause that can be made for an alternative reading of the passage as referring to a particular situation at Ephesus. Plus, I don’t think the ‘traditional’ understanding is without its problems. But I would like to dedicate a blog post to that particular passage another day. Suffice it to say I think there is, to channel William Lane Craig, ‘reasonable doubt’. And if 1 Timothy doesn’t teach women should not be in authority in church leadership, what then?

I don’t have answers at the moment, just questions. But I think it’s right sometimes to question these things. There are a goodly number of evangelical scholars out there who have come to rest on the egalitarian position.

Well, once again in my own ‘special’ way I have managed to write a medium-length blog post without coming to any firm conclusions. But hopefully some more updates to follow. Watch this space, or don’t, as the case may be.

That said, I have been thinking a bit about Twitter recently, and how it affects communication. Twitter, if you’ve never got into the craze (and have had your head buried under a rock for the past few years – in which case, how are you even reading this?!) is a social media service where you can send messages to your ‘followers’, people who subscribe to your updates, as long as the messages are 140 characters or less.

In many respects this has been an absolute revolution – but, frankly, lots of people have written about it far more eloquently and intelligently than I ever could. What I’d like to look at is one aspect of Twitter usage which I’ve become more and more disturbed by over the past few months (and years – it’s been building for a long time).

In my opinion, the single biggest problem with the 140-character limit on messages is that it is pretty much impossible to back up your arguments. And so, people generally don’t bother. Twitter has become a breeding ground for snide, immoderate, unthoughtful comments which are rehashed again and again. In the people I follow, this tends to manifest itself especially in religion and politics.

For example: the coalition government announce that they are going to make some cuts. Instead of actually looking at the arguments, someone posts up “THE GOVERNMENT ARE CRAP! THEY’RE GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!” And, all of a sudden, it seems the whole of Twitter is talking about how terrible the government are, without actually engaging with anything that the government has actually said – only a distilled, watered-down, 140-character version of it.

Another example: over Easter, various atheists such as Mitch Benn post up something like “Happy zombie Jesus day!” Although I’m not offended by that being posted, I am disappointed: it seems to be a cheap shot with no substance. It’s not even funny. Was it really necessary to post?

The problem with all this is that in both of those examples, it wasn’t really necessary to provide argumentation. They’re both the kind of statements that seem to be borne out of frustration and anger, not designed to provoke honest discussion but instead to rally people who agree while simultaneously ostracising people who disagree.

Rather than having balanced, moderate discourse, Twitter has just become a place where people can vent their frustration to the world – like you used to do down the pub of an evening over a few drinks, but it’s on a much larger scale, so lots of other people can join in the anger and frustration. Basically Twitter can be turned into something of a ‘rant zone’, which I think is unhelpful and potentially dangerous.

You can’t have any kind of meaningful discussion or debate on Twitter (even multiple 140-character tweets are simply not enough), all you can do is take potshots at people’s views and watch the flaming begin. Welcome to 21st century communication.

Admittedly, flaming (sending very angry, thoughtless and mostly anonymous messages) has been a problem for as long as the internet has existed  - but I think Twitter has made it more acceptable to ‘flame’. It’s just the culture to post up things which annoy and frustrate you, everyone seems to do it from time to time. (And yes, I realise the irony of me posting up being annoyed with Twitter on my blog, which gets posted to Twitter. But still.)

My feelings at the moment are that it’s important for all of us to be very careful how we use Twitter. Are we using it in a productive way, which gives people good information, helps the debate, and actually edifies people? I point the finger as much at myself here as I do anyone. I have been guilty plenty of times for using Twitter to vent.

The Bible, in James 3:5, says “…the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.” A great forest being set on fire by a small spark – that is exactly how I see Twitter potentially developing. We need to keep our electronic tongues in check for the sake of our friends and neighbours.

It’s strange thinking back to last April. Although by that stage we knew we were coming to London, we didn’t know where we were going to be living. Also we both still had regular jobs, we were both involved with our church in Colchester including helping out with a youth club every week. Now, here we are – 12 months later, and only a few weeks away from finishing the year!

I still get days when I wake up and think, “What are you doing?!” Not so much now, but it seems strange to have given up our old lives, relatively secure, for lives which are a lot less certain. That said, I wouldn’t change it for anything – I feel much happier now. I’m loving studying the Bible, I’ve loved having the opportunity to preach a few times recently and just generally get involved in some ministry and learning about ministry. I definitely feel like this is where God wants us for the time being.

So, all that said, here are a few details about the rest of our Easter break. As I think I mentioned, I was on a mission for the first week. Then I spent the week generally chilling out a bit – before the holidays I was somewhat frazzled and stressed out with work, so I needed a bit of time! Then, for Easter weekend we went up to Colchester. On Easter Sunday we saw my parents, in between going to the morning and evening services at Fordham. Then, on the Monday we went round to AJ and Jen’s house and had a lovely day with them.

Then we came back home, Phil was back to work on the Tuesday, and I spent most of the week doing a bit of college work. So, there you have it, that’s how things are going for us in a nutshell!

Just over five more weeks of term left, then one week of exams, and then – academically speaking, it’s over for me until next year. This year has flown by so quickly, it’s scary. Anyway, that’s all from me. Normal service will resume shortly.

In case you hadn’t heard, a bus advert has been banned: a group called Core Issues Trust, together with Anglican Mainstream, tried to put an advert on some London buses. Before I say what the advert was, you might want to make sure you’re sitting comfortably and have plenty of air around, maybe a nice cup of tea, because it will shock and dismay you to the very core of your being. Well, maybe not that extreme.

The advert was (are you sure you’re sitting down?): “Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it.”

Wow. Are you shocked and dismayed? Well, apparently good old Boris was – dismayed enough to ban the ads in the name of intolerance (one source quoted him as saying he was ‘intolerant of intolerance’, not sure how that works logically but there we go.)

Anyway, now it’s looking like Core Issues Trust want to sue for the ads being pulled. And, unsurprisingly, many people have been making remarks (on Twitter, where else? I honestly don’t know what we did as a civilisation before outrage could be widely spread in 140 characters or less) about how it would be nice if Christians cared about issues that actually mattered, such as poverty, healing the sick – the usual stuff.

There are just so many things wrong with all this, it’s staggering.

First things first: I don’t agree with Core Issues / Anglican Mainstream for running the ad. It seems to me to be playing ‘tit for tat’ with Stonewall – “hey, Stonewall have done an advert. Let’s respond and try to stoke the fires a bit more.” I honestly don’t know what they were trying to achieve with the advert, what their target audience were, other than trying to cause some controversy. Was there no other better way of getting the ‘message’ out there?

Secondly: this brings me on to Stonewall’s original advert, and TfL choosing to run it. What gives Stonewall the right to have their advert run, whereas the other ad has been refused? I mean, it’s not as if Stonewall’s was less provocative. Being tolerant used to mean managing the disagreements we have with people – i.e. disagreeing with things but still finding a way to live and maintain that relationship. Tolerance these days seems to mean, ‘not being allowed to have any disagreements, ever.’ You WILL conform, or else. Disagreements may be allowed to happen in the private sphere, but publicly we have to pretend we all agree. Perhaps a better ad would have been, ‘Some people have different opinions about homosexuality. Get over it.’

I don’t agree with running the advert, but at the same time I don’t agree with Boris banning it.

Thirdly: There has been a lot of confusion over what the Core Issues ad was actually about. What do the terms ‘ex-gay’ and ‘post-gay’ actually mean? Is there such a thing – and is it contradicted by scientific evidence? Well, Peter Ould has been doing a grand job of looking at this issue on his blog, so instead of writing about it here I will  refer you to his Post-Gay FAQs as somewhere to start.

Fourthly: the response to it on Twitter has, unusually, got me quite annoyed. (OK, I give, I often get annoyed by things on Twitter. I also sometimes lie in blog posts). An MP yesterday tweeted that he’d never had a letter from a Christian about child slavery, poverty – but he’d had plenty about homosexuality. It got me wondering: if he’s had letters about child slavery, poverty etc – how did he know these weren’t from Christians? Did they sign their names at the bottom, “Yours sincerely, Joe Bloggs (Atheist)”? In other words, those letters could have come from Christian people, even if they didn’t self-identify as such in the letter. On the other hand, if he’d had no letters at all – then that doesn’t look good for people of all faiths and none. It cuts both ways.

The problem with saying ‘why can’t the Church focus on important issues?’ is that, to a greater or lesser extent many Christians do care about these things, and are doing a lot about them. I know plenty of people who are involved in caring for the homeless, or doing things like street pastoring – because they are Christian. But does that ever get reported in the media? Rarely.

The media love to report about controversy. They love to report about the Church’s debate about homosexuality. And, to an extent, I think the Church don’t help themselves – some in the church (perhaps historically, not so much now although it’s still around) have turned it into a ‘red letter sin’ (to use Wes Hill‘s phrase). But, frankly, it seems to me to be a storm generated by the media (and social media) rather than an inherent flaw in the church.

Well, that about wraps it up from me. I just have one thing left to say: Some people write blogs about gay ads. Get over it.

Anyway, I have to say that I found the whole series very encouraging. Each of the churches that the reverse missionaries came to I think were ‘evangelical’ theologically, but in most cases had perhaps lost some of the desire for evangelism. In each case, the numbers at the church had dropped off significantly and there were very few young people there.

What the reverse missionaries did was go out into the community, meet people, and bring them into the church community. I think my favourite was the first episode, where a Jamaican pastor came to a small town in Gloucestershire and by the end of the two weeks had managed to get a football team going, brought in a few new people to the church, and generally made an impact!

Obviously, all of the reverse missionaries were not very British – I think I (and probably most British people) would generally not be very confident with going up to someone in the street and talking to them cold. But what struck me was that, in general, people were actually very receptive.

There are a couple of things I took from watching the series:

1. The gospel is the answer to what people are looking for. This is something which I knew on an intellectual level, but it’s great to see it actually happening in the real world. The first episode showed someone hurting; he needed to know that there was a purpose in his suffering and a promise of release. The second episode showed a woman who had lost her husband; she needed to know the promise of resurrection and eternal life. The third episode showed a divided community; what they needed to know was “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
2. The things that the reverse missionaries did were not magical, or only doable by an elite few – all they did was care for people, and try to reach out to them with the message of the good news. Now clearly they were gifted with people, which is something I’m not, but at the same time reaching out to people with the message of the good news isn’t rocket science. Sure, there will be different ways of doing it depending on context, but the important thing is not to become insular. I think the churches featured had all become somewhat inward looking, and that’s the worst thing that can happen to a church.

In general, in the midst of what’s been going on with secular society, HOTS and the like – it’s nice to be reminded (in an understated, unassuming way) that the good news is still good news, and that God is still working.

Given that I didn’t post anything up on Good Friday, and given that I won’t be around to post something up tomorrow, I thought I might post up a prayer from “The Valley of Vision”, a collection of puritan prayers. This is one which was given to us as part of a chapel communion service last term, and I find it very helpful.

My Father,

Enlarge my heart, warm my affections, open my lips, supply words that proclaim ‘Love lustres at Calvary.’

There grace removes my burdens and heaps them on thy Son, made a transgressor, a curse, and sin for me;
There the sword of thy justice smote the man, thy fellow;
There thy infinite attributes were magnified, and infinite atonement was made;
There infinite punishment was due, and infinite punishment was endured.

Christ was all anguish that I might be all joy,
cast off that I might be brought in,
trodden down as an enemy that I might be welcomed as a friend,
surrendered to hell’s worst that I might attain heaven’s best,
stripped that I might be clothed,
wounded that I might be healed,
athirst that I might drink,
tormented that I might be comforted,
made a shame that I might inherit glory,
entered darkness that I might have eternal light.

My Saviour wept that all tears might be wiped from my eyes,
groaned that I might have endless song,
endured all pain that I might have unfading health,
bore a thorny crown that I might have a glory-diadem,
bowed his head that I might uplift mine,
experienced reproach that I might receive welcome,
closed his eyes in death that I might gaze on unclouded brightness,
expired that I might for ever live.

O Father, who spared not thine only Son that thou mightest spare me,
All this transfer thy love designed and accomplished;
Help me to adore thee by lips and life.
O that my every breath might be ecstatic praise,
my every step buoyant with delight,
as I see my enemies crushed,
Satan baffled, defeated, destroyed,
sin buried in the ocean of reconciling blood,
hell’s gates closed, heaven’s portal open.
Go forth, O conquering God, and show me the cross,
mighty to subdue, comfort and save.”

The passage is Mark 8:31-38, which it would be helpful to read before reading the sermon! And so, without further ado…

In the news, we’re often hearing of the results of this survey or that survey that’s been conducted, particularly with regards to the issue of faith. A few weeks ago, the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins announced the results of a survey he had commissioned on attitudes to Christianity in the UK. When he announced the results, he said – and I quote: “it is clear that faith is a spent force in the UK.”

That was his interpretation of the data. But not everyone sees it like that. One thing, for example, which he seems to miss, was that it seems to indicate at least a quarter of the population agree with the statement, “Jesus is the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind.”

I wonder what kind of answers I would get if I went round Kidsgrove today and asked people who they think Jesus was. I wonder what they would say to the question, what does that mean? What does it mean for Jesus to be the Son of God? Well, the passage we’re looking at today deals with the issue of what it means. Just before our section, in verse 30, Peter says to Jesus “You are the Christ.” Peter recognised that Jesus was the King the Israelites had been expecting, whose coming had been prophesied in the Old Testament. From this point onwards in Mark’s gospel, the question becomes: “What does it mean for Jesus to be King?”

Why did Jesus need to die?

Notice that the very first thing Jesus teaches them, in verse 31, is that “the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected … and that he must be killed.” This is Jesus teaching them about what it means for him to be King: Not that he will suffer, but that he must. It’s part of his mission.

People sometimes have this view of Jesus of a weak character, someone who is blown around by the winds of chance, and someone who ends up being killed because he manages to annoy the wrong people. But that’s not at all how the Bible sees it. Jesus says that his death is part and parcel of his mission.

In fact, when Peter takes Jesus aside to take him to task, in verse 33 Jesus rebukes him because he does not “have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Jesus says that it is the plan of God himself that Peter is opposing.

But all this raises a question: why was it so necessary for Jesus to die? One of the clearest answers to that question comes in the Old Testament, from Isaiah 53. This is a prophecy, written 500 years before Jesus came, about what he would come to do. Verses 5-6 say,

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

The Bible says we have all gone astray like sheep. We have all rejected the God who made us, and done wrong against him. But, in His mercy, God provided a sacrifice of himself: Jesus, the Son of God, took all the punishment and the penalty of our sin for us on the cross, so that through his death all who believe in Him may obtain forgiveness and salvation.

1 Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” The problem is that none of us are righteous in God’s eyes. But, because of Jesus becoming sin for us, anyone who repents and believes in him can be considered righteous in God’s eyes.

Peter

So this necessity for Jesus’ death puts Peter’s rebuke into sharp relief. And this provokes a question in my mind: Why does Peter, who knew Jesus well, who only a few verses before had declared him to be the Christ, reject what Jesus says about having to die?

I think the answer is, at the time the Jewish people were living under Roman authority. They had been conquered by the Roman Empire, and they absolutely hated it. They had read the prophecies of the Old Testament, and they were expecting a Messiah figure like David to arise, a warrior king who would lead them in fighting against the Romans and throw off the shackles of oppression.

When Peter declared that Jesus was the Christ, what he had in mind was someone who was going to fulfil this image he had of the warrior king. But Jesus says, no – that’s not right. As we’ve already seen, his mission was to die. Peter’s expectation of what it meant to be the Messiah was wrong, it needed to be fixed.

Peter is an example for us: he is someone who spent a lot of time with Jesus. He was one of the disciples; he knew Jesus personally. And yet, he still got it wrong when it came to Jesus telling them that he needed to die. He didn’t realise what Jesus’ mission was all about. He didn’t realise what it meant to be a follower of Jesus. This is our challenge: Peter called himself a follower of Jesus, and yet he still managed to get things wrong. It’s like that with us.

Although we no longer have an expectation of Jesus as a warrior king, a lot of people today seem to think of Jesus as a great moral teacher – which he certainly was! But if that’s where our understanding of Jesus begins and ends, following him will basically mean trying to be a good person and do good things. But that’s not what Jesus says it means to be his follower.

Following Jesus

After Jesus rebukes Peter, he calls everybody around him and teaches them what it actually means to follow him. Jesus says, v34, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Now at this point I think our culture gets in the way of understanding this fully. I’m sure most if not all of us are familiar with the expression “having a cross to bear”, or something similar, meaning “a heavy burden of responsibility or a problem that they alone must cope with.”

That’s not the cross that Jesus was talking about here. If you saw someone carrying a cross in first-century Jerusalem, you knew that they were heading out to die. Jesus already knew what kind of a death He was going to face. What Jesus is saying is that to be a follower of Him means taking up your cross and following him out to die.

But what does that mean? Jesus didn’t intend for all his disciples to go out and be crucified with Him! What does it mean to follow Him to His death?

The apostle Paul says in Galatians 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

Notice that expression ‘crucified with Christ’. Paul knew what it meant to take up his cross and follow Jesus. It didn’t mean a physical death, it meant a spiritual death: it meant dying to the part of him which was in opposition to Christ, and instead living “by faith in the Son of God”. Did you notice Jesus says in our passage, “deny yourself, take up your cross…” We need to deny ourselves because our nature is to go against what God wants!

But if we are crucified with Christ, it’s a complete change of direction: we acknowledge that Jesus is Lord of our lives, and by faith we live a new life to please Him in the knowledge that we have been forgiven.

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen anyone baptised as an adult, but baptism itself presents a graphical picture of this. When the person is baptised, they go down under the water. This symbolises death to the old life, the life lived against Christ. When they come back up out of the water, this symbolises the birth of the new life, the life which is lived with Christ as Lord in order to please Him.

Now, you might be sitting there thinking, “that’s all very well, but how can a follower of Jesus completely share in Christ’s death? Surely no-one can be totally transformed like that?”

This is true. That is exactly the point: no-one can live a life which is completely transformed. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Just because we aren’t yet totally transformed, just because we don’t 100% love God and don’t love our neighbour as ourselves, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to do those things with God’s help.

And Jesus acknowledges this. If you look at the parallel passage in Luke’s gospel, Luke 9:23, Jesus actually says that taking up our cross is something that his followers need to do daily. It’s not something which we do once and then never have to do again. He is saying, if you are his follower you will make mistakes, you will fall down. But keep persevering and He will help you. This is why Christians take communion together regularly: it’s to remind each other that we need to keep coming back to the cross, keep reminding each other of the forgiveness that we find there, and keep promising to deny ourselves and take up our cross. This is the way of salvation.

The Way of Life

So we have heard something of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. But the key question now becomes: why should we be followers of Jesus? Why is it so necessary, given that following Him seems to be so hard?

Well, in Mark 8:35-39 Jesus gives the reason why it’s so important for us to follow him. In verse 35 he says, “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.” It is true that sharing in Christ’s death is like losing your life: we have to deny ourselves, deny (some of) the things that we want to do, and live life to please God, not ourselves.

I don’t know whether this is still the case, but a few years ago in school, if someone was working very hard and being a bit of a swot, we might say to them “get a life!” The implication being that they weren’t really living life if they were reading books and doing homework all the time. And I think sometimes that is how we perceive the Christian life to be: not sleeping with lots of people? Get a life! Not going out getting drunk at the weekends? Get a life! Life is out there to be lived – get out there and please yourself!

But what Jesus says here is that people who lose life for him and for the gospel will actually find it. Living a life with Jesus as Lord is the most amount of life that it is possible to have. Jesus says in John 10:10, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”

But there’s more! Notice back in verse 31 how Jesus says that after three days he will rise again. Those who would follow Jesus, who deny themselves, who take up their cross, will ultimately join in his resurrection. The apostle Paul says, in Romans 6:5, “If we have been united with [Jesus] like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.” A life lived for Jesus and the gospel is the most amount of life you can have, not only in this life, but in the life to come.

In the long run, anything we have needed to give up in this life to follow Jesus will be nothing compared to the gain we will receive by being with him forever.

But there is another side to this. Notice what Jesus says in verse 36: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” If you decide not to follow Jesus, then nothing will be able to save you. Jesus says it doesn’t matter if you gain everything in the whole world! If you have ten private helicopters, if you have more money than Bill Gates, if you give millions to charity, if you have a perfect family – all of this you could have, but lose the most important thing: your soul.

In verse 38, Jesus says: “All who are ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in His Father’s glory with the holy angels.” If Jesus is ashamed of us on that day, he will say: “away from me, I never knew you”. That leads to everlasting death and judgement. But if we have taken up our cross and followed him to the end, he will say “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

Following Jesus means denying ourselves and acknowledging Christ as Lord over our lives. But it means being on the way of life. No other way that we can take will lead us to life, either in this life or in the one to come.