“When You Walk Through the Fire, You Will Not be Burned.”

A couple of months ago I bought the DVD/CD “Majestic” by Kari Jobe. At one point she introduces one of her songs called “I am not alone” by quoting from the book of Isaiah chapter 43 verse 2:- “When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned, the flames will not set you ablaze.” The first part of the verse seems to be referring back to events in Israel’s history. Namely, the crossing of the Red Sea in the Exodus and the crossing of the Jordan River in the book of Joshua. The second part seems to be referring to an event in the Babylonian exile when the three Jewish men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, were thrown into the fiery furnace on the orders of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter 3. (Abednego as opposed to his Australian cousin Abendigo. [As I have heard him mispronounced.]) The problem that arises is that Isaiah lived and died a century or more before the exile. Liberal theologians have long considered that the latter part of the the book of Isaiah was written after the exile and would no doubt see this verse as evidence in their support. On the contrary I would argue that the three young men must have been aware of this verse in order to be so confident that their God was able to save them. There was no comparable event in Jewish history where the enemies of God’s people had threatened them with fire and they had survived unscathed, it had to be prophetic. Though they were bound when they were thrown into the fire their bindings were destroyed but they were unharmed. They were able to walk about in the flames. Nebuchadnezzar was astounded to see a fourth person in the fire. They knew from Isaiah that because God had been with Israel in the past when they crossed the Red Sea and when they crossed the Jordan that God would be with them in the fire. It has just occurred to me as I am writing this post that the young men might have even quoted this verse to Nebuchadnezzar in their defence so he ordered them to be bound so they could not be able to walk in the fire. In Scripture what is recorded in many cases may only have been a synopsis of what was said in any dialogue. If not then we would be all be suffering from hernias lugging our massive tomes around. Not only did Nebuchadnezzar see the three of them walking about in the furnace but also a fourth person was seen in the flames, thus confirming the promise of the verse that God would walk with them in the flames.
David Rose. 2014.

Posted in reflections | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Three Persons of the Trinity – God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Some people seem to have a real problem with the concept of the trinity. They use specious arguments such as the word ‘trinity’ does not appear in the Bible. Theological terms have come into being over the centuries in order to encapsulate ideas and concepts contained in Scripture. Just because a term isn’t used in the Bible does not mean that it is ‘unbiblical.’ The bible says that humans are made in God’s image and we are combination of mind, body and spirit, though atheists try to deny it. Creation works on three levels:- (1) on a macro/cosmological level; (2) it works on a human worldly level that we experience day to day; and (3) it also works on a microscopical level.
When Moses asked to see God he was told that nobody had seen Him face to face and lived so God allowed Moses to see a fraction of His glory. Moses must have been so frightened by this he never asked to be shown more. In New Testament terms he was clearly asking to see God the Father. Prior to this event in Exodus chapter 24 Moses and the elders of Israel had prostrated themselves before a figure who was clearly human-like in appearance. Again this in New Testament terms would appear to be God the Son. He appears to be the person of the Godhead whose primary purpose appears to be to communicate with man on a human level, whereas God the Father seems to be the planner behind Creation. One of the aspects of the physical universe that puzzles scientists is that there seems to be a shortage of matter that has been observed in order to account for the movement of galaxies, etc. There is speculation about the existence of dark matter but maybe that it is God the Father that is holding the universe together unseen by man. I understand that the Hebrew word for glory can also mean weight so God’s glory could be holding the universe together. I did hear a preacher once say that Jesus was holding the universe together but what would have happened at the crucifixion if that had been the case? It does not bear thinking about.
If God the Father was strategic planner it would still require those plans to be worked out in the smallest minutiae. That would be the role of the Holy Spirit. To think through all the complexities of DNA for each species requires a meticulous eye for detail. It was only after Jesus had been given the Holy Spirit after his baptism that he was enabled to perform miracles. All these miracles would have required changes on a molecular level, whether to change water into wine or blind men to see. There are times when all three persons of the trinity are working together and it is easy to see God as singular. Yet one of the most common Hebrew names for God is Elohim which is a plural in Hebrew and is used in Genesis chapter 1. (Hebrew plurals end in the suffix -im.) The only time when the Godhead was truly separated was on the cross when Jesus bore our sin. The sky darkened to show that God the Father could not look upon God the Son because he bore our sin. It was only when the light began to return that Jesus knew that sin had been atoned for and cry:- “It is finished.”
David Rose, 2014

Posted in reflections | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Post-Referendum Scotland, an Update.

I had hoped to move away from the political situation up here, but I notice that a number of my followers are political bloggers who are overseas. Sadly UK media websites tend to be London based. The main ones used, I understand, are The Times, Daily Mail and the BBC. The problem is that news from Scotland has to be sufficiently newsworthy for the English for it to command attention, so it easy for developments to occur under the radar. I would suggest they subscribe to the [formerly Glasgow] Herald to get a more balanced view.
For instance, the local paper here announced this week that a local branch was to be formed of “Women for Independence.” Clearly this is evidence that parts of the ‘Yes’ camp are still active and recruiting support. I must admit that as a Christian I find that I am somewhat ashamed by evangelical zeal of some of the Yes supporters. They put me to shame when it comes to sharing Christ. This attitude seems to defy logic for those who voted No. The SNP and their allies have been accused of not accepting the result of the Referendum. One can see why.
Meanwhile, David Cameron’s plan for “English votes for English laws” has met with opposition from his coalition partners as well as the Labour Party. Why is David Cameron so keen on the idea? Could be connected with the Conservatives proposal to devolve all Income Tax in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament? Is this a political manoeuvre to prevent a future Labour Government having a sufficient majority to impose higher rates of Income Tax for high earning Fat Cats. That is assuming that such a Government will 40-odd Scottish MPs. That could be a dangerous assumption despite their lead in UK opinion polls. Will Labour Yes voters continue to support party having broken the habit of a lifetime will they return to the fold by May?
On Thursday the Herald reported that a “leading Labour Party office bearer had quit her post in the post-referendum fallout, citing disillusionment with the party nationally.” She has decided not to stand in the next local elections in 2017. She represents the Partick ward in Glasgow and she tweeted in the aftermath of the referendum vote: “How the Labour Party reacts to results in the next few hours + days will decide our future. Gloating/triumphalism = Pyrrhic victory.” Another said: “Scenes of celebrating with the Tories aren’t going to go down well with the folks who voted Yes in my ward. Stand by for the backlash.” It is, of course, a long time till the next General Election in May and a lot depends on whether Labour Yes voters feel they have been listened to by the Commission into potential devolved powers. Just do not be surprised if the Labour Party loses a number of safe seats if Yes voters decide to vote SNP.
There is also the rumbling question as to whether the No campaign breached the electoral rules by keeping tallies of “sample openings” of the postal ballot papers resulting from comments made by Ruth Davidson the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood live on BBC Scotland 45 minutes after the polls closed. The matter has now been referred to the police. These comments give rise to a lot of conspiracy theories that question the validity of the outcome but in the cold light of day it will be difficult pin down an actual person who did what and where when it comes to bringing formal charges. But again I can say watch this space.
David Rose. 2014.

Posted in political commentary | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Reflections on the Scottish Referendum Vote.

I have often observed that the level of support for Scottish Independence is mirrored by the fortunes of the Scottish Football team. Earlier this month Scotland played Germany in Germany and lost 2-1. The Germans scored first, followed by an equaliser that was closely followed by the German winner. Gordon Strachan the Scottish manager reckoned his team had played good enough to get a result even though they lost. As the results of Thursday’s referendum were being read out the early ones were for the No campaign but a string of results for the Yes Campaign drew them ahead briefly before the avalanche of No results put the matter beyond doubt. The Yes Campaign seemed to have played well enough to win in many respects but it lost. But unlike the Germany game there is no return match. At least not for the foreseeable future.
So now the Yes supporters are rather like the Israelites in the book of Numbers (chapters 13 and 14) when they first reached the borders of the Promised Land. 12 spies had been sent into the land, 2 reported favourably that the land was good and that with the Lord’s help all their enemies could be overcome. The other 10, however, saw only the difficulties and magnified them seeing all the inhabitants as giants. So Israel lost heart and rebelled. This resulted at them having to wait nearly 40 years before they could enter the land. Some Israelites regretted the rebellion and tried to enter the land by themselves only to receive a bloody nose and had to retreat. Surely a warning about doing anything too rashly and prematurely to try and force the issue in the aftermath. We have no idea when another opportunity will arise to hold another referendum. “Not again in our lifetime,” might be a little pessimistic, as Harold Wilson famously said that a week is a long time in politics. So a lifetime might not turn out to be so long after all. English backbenchers have long been unhappy about Scottish MPs voting on England only legislation and equally they are suspicious of powers being transferred away from Westminster. One Tory MP has defected to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and is expected to win the by-election that he called by resigning his seat. It is claimed that other MPs are prepared to defect if he wins. That would lead English politics into uncharted territory. Any MP who defected to UKIP would no longer be subject to the discipline of the parties who pledged to give further powers to the Scottish Parliament and become a rallying point for opposition.
Meanwhile in Scotland the First Minister, Alex Salmond, announced his intended resignation as First Minister and SNP leader. This took his supporters by complete surprise but he appears to have very wise, after all the campaigning he clearly felt the need of a sabbatical, but have we seen the last of him? After his batteries have been recharged I am sure he will be looking for something to do, if only as an elder statesman of the party. Returning to the book of Numbers after failure to enter the land we hear little of Caleb, one of the two spies who gave a positive report, during the 40 wilderness years, it is only when the Israelites were getting ready for crossing the Jordan River that he is mentioned again.
I started writing this post the weekend after the referendum, and there have been many political developments both north and south of the border since. There have been calls for the nation to come together and heal their divisions. Some of this seems to be coming from the ‘No’ camp supporters who being victorious who are expecting ‘Yes’ campaigners to abandon all hope of an independent Scotland and wander around in sackcloth and ashes. There is bemusement that the defeated camp seem confident that in time Scotland’s independence has only been delayed, instead of being full of woe and despair. But real peace-making involves more than papering over the cracks. It comprises efforts to understand both sides of the arguments even if at the end of the day you agree to disagree. It is easy to see the speck in your brother’s eye, but the Lord said to first take the plank out of your own eye. But it is human nature to try and justify our failings that to such an extent that we see the metaphorical plank as a God-given appendage to which we can attach our own colours. As Christians we have to accept that there are many moral issues that should there be a referendum on them we would lose if opinion polls are to be believed (abortion, assisted suicide, same sex marriage, etc.). The pressure is on the Church to modernise their positions on these things and many others and conform with the majority rather than conform to the Word of God. So any Christian who voted No should wary of condemning Yes voters just because their were in the minority in the vote. After all Moses did not give up his dream of entering the Holy Land, even if it ended up with Joshua leading the Israelites across the Jordan.
Meanwhile the leaders of the parties who supported the No campaign have had their troubles to seek. David Cameron got himself in trouble with the Queen when his conversation with ex-Major Bloomberg of New York was caught on camera. Then in quick succession another of his MPs defected to UKIP and one of his ministers had to resign in a sex scandal. Labour’s Ed Miliband forgot part of his conference speech, and Nick Clegg found that his party is no longer the third party of British politics as their membership has been overtaken by the SNP which has more than doubled its membership (it has nearly trebled in the nine days since the defeat had been announced). As one political commentator noted that the dictum that history is written by the victors has been confounded by the Scottish Government’s initiative to hold the Unionist parties to their promises of more powers to the Scottish Parliament. In the SNP agreeing to join in the dialogue the Unionist parties may have to concede more powers than they otherwise intended. If things go on like this then the No win will begin to look like a Pyrrhic victory.
David Rose, 2014.

Posted in political commentary, reflections | Tagged | Leave a comment

Why did not Jonathan take on Goliath?

Many years ago I heard a sermon that touched on the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17), but the preacher then asked the question as to why Jonathan, King Saul’s son and heir not fight Goliath? After all some years earlier Jonathan and his armour-bearer had taken on the whole Philistine army and routed them at Michmash (1 Samuel 14). According to this preacher he had lost his nerve. Now that is a good question it is just that the answer he arrived at was wrong. Even at that time I was not convinced by his reasoning but the more I have thought about over the years the more wrong it seemed. After all if Jonathan had lost his nerve then instead of becoming friends with David he would have resented his triumph. It is illogical. Like many a young prince over the centuries Jonathan liked his escapades of derring-do but Saul would have expected his son to stay alive long enough in order to succeed him as king. So I think it far more probable that Saul forbade Jonathan from taking on Goliath. All the more reason for Jonathan to identify Goliath’s victor as a man of his own heart. The irony is that in trying to ensure his son’s survival to succeed him he allowed the opportunity for the one whom Samuel had anointed as Saul’s successor to rise to prominence.
Even more ironic is that Saul was quite willing to kill Jonathan after the battle at Michmash. Let’s go back to the events at Michmash. Firstly we hear that Jonathan led a raid on a Philistine outpost. This angered the Philistines who mobilised their army. When Saul mobilised his forces, the Israelites saw that they were vastly outnumbered. Some deserted to the enemy and others melted away. Saul waited for Samuel to arrive to perform a sacrifice, but he was late showing up. The longer he delayed the more the morale of the Israelites fell. It was against this background that Jonathan thought to attack a small detachment of Philistines at the top of a pass. Accompanied by his armour-bearer he climbed the pass when the Philistines spotted him they called down to him to come up and fight which Jonathan took to be a sign that the Lord would give him victory. When they reached the top they killed the first Philistines that attacked them causing the remainder to run off. A panic set in the rest of the Philistine army and it began to melt away. This took Saul completely by surprise, he hurriedly performed his own sacrifice and sought to pursue the fleeing Philistines. He rashly told his men not to eat any food until the end of the day on pain of death. Nothing was to halt the pursuit of the enemy. The only problem was Jonathan knew nothing and ate some honey. When Saul found out he all for killing his son but the other Israelites persuaded him that it would be wrong to kill the person who was responsible for Israel’s victory. Those Israelites who had deserted to the Philistines turned their coats again and fell on their erstwhile allies. This would give the Philistine leaders suspicions towards other Israelites who purported to be on their side. Hence they did not trust David and refused to have him on their side least he betray them to Saul, so he and his men were told to return to Ziklag. The upshot of what happened at Michmash was that no further military adventures of Jonathan are recorded in Scripture. When Samuel had to pronounce that Saul had been rejected as king after he failed to obey the Lord’s commands concerning the Amalekites in 1 Samuel chapter 15 there is no mention of Jonathan being there.
Now when it came to Goliath’s challenge Saul and the rest of the Israelite army were without an answer. The obvious reason for Jonathan not taking up the challenge would be because Saul would not want to risk losing his heir. There might been a secondary reason at the back of Saul’s mind. We know he had been oppressed by an evil spirit from time to time, maybe it had suggested to Saul that Jonathan might usurp him. Jonathan had shown his fighting ability at Michmash and might have proved a worthy opponent for Goliath. If Jonathan had defeated Goliath then Saul might have seen this as a stepping-stone to the throne as later he would see David to be. Though I have to add that this is very speculative. Whatever reason it was that Saul was reluctant to let Jonathan have a go at Goliath we have to remember that in so doing he acted in the opposite way to God the Father who did not spare his Son in order to redeem us.
David Rose 2014.

Posted in reflections | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Christian Perspective on the Scottish Independence Referendum.

As I write this the clock is ticking towards the date of the Scottish Independence referendum on 18th September 2014. Much of the campaigning has dwelt on financial matters with each side claiming that people would be financially better off if they voted their way. The political union brought about by the 1707 Act is sometimes likened to a marriage, but how accurate is that analogy? Scripture also states that one should not be unequally yoked. The whole political process that led up to the Union took about 4 years. It took so long because the majority of the Scottish Parliament opposed it initially. The debate ebbed and flowed over those years, but the English would not take no for an answer. Support for the independence cause was not helped when the Duke of Hamilton who led the opposition to the Union was found meeting a Jacobite agent, which made him a marked man. After the Union was rejected in 1705 the English reaction resulted in a Commission being set up to renegotiate the treaty which the Scottish Parliament would accept. There were some concessions, including allowing the Established Church of Scotland to remain Presbyterian and that the Scottish legal system be retained intact. There was also the ‘subsidy’ which was officially compensation for the failure of the Darien scheme but in reality it was seen as a bribe to support the Union. As Burns would later write “Bought and sold for English gold, sic a parcel of rogues in the nation.”
Several decades ago whilst listening to a sermon on the book of Hosea I posed myself the question if Scotland was pictured as a woman what would she be? I saw her as a woman who said no to England’s advances repeatedly but only agreed to say yes out of fear. (English troops were sent to border prior to the final vote, implying a potential invasion of Scotland) That is not a picture of holy matrimony but rather of rape. Though there was nominally free trade between the two countries the customs posts remained open on the English sides of the border with England imposing an import tax on whisky on the grounds it was a ‘colonial’ liquor. Scotland was never intended to be an equal partner in this Union. Free trade only came between the two countries in 1846 the year after the first railway crossed the border. When the railway organised an excursion train to Berwick its passengers were jumped upon by the English customs officials who set about seizing whisky in a heavy-handed manner. The resultant outcry together with the general drift towards liberalisation of trade had its effect. (the Navigation Acts and the Corn Laws were also repealed in that year.
At the time of the Union Scotland was very much poorer than England and over the previous century the gap had widened. In the eighteenth century society judged people by their wealth and property. As such the poorer Scots were second-class citizens. There was no help from central government to redress this matter. Part of England’s increased wealth had come from the growth of the slave trade and the products they slaves produced. Prior to the Union Scotland had been excluded from this trade by the Navigation Acts and the English merchants were not going let their Scottish rivals in if they could help it. But at least by not being involved in the slave trade it was an ‘honest poverty.’ Eventually the tobacco industry became a source of wealth on the Clyde which began to redress some of the wealth deficit. Though the wealth generated has to be mitigated by the negative effects of tobacco usage (lung cancer, etc.) With hindsight, hardly a ringing endorsement for the Union. Similarly, the introduction of sugar refining at Greenock could be argued has fuelled Scotland’s sweet tooth and the increase today in cases of type 2 diabetes.
The fact that Scotland eventually prospered under the Union was as much in spite of the Union than because of the Union. One of the benefits of Presbyterianism was that Scotland had a higher literacy rate than England. Some of the English trading companies later in the 18th century eventually allowed Scots to work as clerks overseas, especially in lands where life expectancy might be short. Some of the those that survived worked themselves into high positions and returned with great wealth. Others used their inventiveness and/or enterprise, such as Henry Bell who built the Comet in 1812 the world’s first practical sea-going steamship. Almost by accident the Clyde became the centre of the shipbuilding industry before central government realised what was happening. The developments were hardly welcomed by the British establishment as when steamships became more reliable and able to stay at sea longer they threatened to make the sailing ships of the Royal Navy redundant.
The First World War disrupted the economy as industry’s priorities changed to meet the war effort. The problems for the economy came after the war when demands changed overnight and Scotland seemed slow to exploit newer sectors of the economy with too many dependent on heavy industry. The seeds of Scottish nationalism were sown but they were very much on the political fringe. Over the decades the fortunes of the Nationalists ebbed and flowed. Even with devolution the SNP seemed to be set to be the permanent opposition until 2007 when they just squeezed in as the largest party. The shock was so great for the Labour Party that they proved an ineffectual opposition. The SNP administration managed to survive a full term in office without any major scandals, which considering they had never been in power before is almost miraculous. In 2011 the SNP managed to do the impossible in getting a majority of seats with an electoral system designed to make this almost impossible. While opinion polls have consistently shown a majority for a No vote it is close enough for the impossible to happen again.
As a Christian I can see reasons why the Lord will allow Scottish Independence. As well as the injustice of how Scotland lost its independence the United Kingdom has done many things which have been wrong. All too often good intentions have been smothered by lobbyists. A couple of years ago the Coalition expressed the intention to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol as the Scottish Government has (Though legal objections are holding this up), but a year later they changed their minds to the disgust of the medical profession. There have been too many instances where political donations lead to titles and peerages over the years. Despite this being officially illegal they always seem to find a way round it. Unionist politicians are always quick to point the finger at Europe but not so quick when it comes to putting their own house in order. Also the promise of a peerage has soothed the conscience of many a backbencher. The whole system stinks to high heaven.
The fact that so many people around the world speak English is both a blessing and a curse. Too many English Christians mistake Anglicisation to Evangelisation. Dismissing the speakers of other native British languages with contempt over the centuries, acting in contrast to the Holy Spirit in Acts Chapter 2 when everybody heard the Gospel in their own language and Revelation where everyone praises God from “every tribe and language.”
I could go on but the referendum will have been and gone before I finish the post.
David Rose, 2014.
Postscript: Well the referendum was lost from my perspective. I shall give my reflections in another post, fortunately I fell short of prophesying a victory. Political developments are happening all the time both north and south of the border.

Posted in History, reflections | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Jesus and Trending

Last week I acquired another follower on my blog called Godinterest which claims to be a Christian version of Pinterest. I have to admit that I do not bother with trending myself. True, I like my posts being liked by others and it is nice to see that people have visited my site. At the present time I have had hits from 35 countries, not bad considering the modest total of hits of just over 400 of official hits. Though I cannot help think that there is a danger that courting popularity will compromise the truth. One sometimes gets helpful hints as to make your blog more popular, but should one always take them? After all many of the Bible’s characters were hardly flavour of the month. I mean if Jeremiah was writing a blog on the eve of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, nobody would have liked his posts and nearly all his friends would have unfriended him. At that time the truth was not something they wanted to hear. King Ahab never liked what Elijah had to say. When we come to the New Testament, we find that there were times when Jesus seemed to be very popular, especially after the feeding of the 5000, but he knew that some of that was for the wrong reasons. Shortly after Peter made his confession that Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus went on to start talking about the cross, then Peter began to dissuade Jesus from talking in such a way, but all it earned him was the rebuke – “Get behind me Satan.” Again at the time of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem He was extremely popular but within a week another crowd would shout – “Crucify Him!”
All in all I just do not see Jesus, if He was on earth today, pouring out His attention over trending statistics and worrying about such things.
David Rose 2014,

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Question of Revival. – A Personal Perspective.

The term ‘revival’ is often used in Christian circles but it can mean different things to different people. In America it might refer to a type of evangelistic meeting. Elsewhere it generally refers to a sovereign move of God. Though the two definitions can easily be confused in the Christian media. Depending where you live in the world Christians tend to look back at those revivals that impacted the most on their own heritage. The Welsh look back to the events of the 1904 revival in Wales. Others might go back to the 1859 revival which broke out in Ulster and spread to other parts of Britain. It spread from Ireland to south-western Scotland during the late summer and early autumn and reports began to appear in the press, an extract from the Ayrshire Express appeared in the Inverness Advertiser on 13th September 1859:-
“The Ayrshire Express, in the notice of Saltcoats, says that multitudes have suddenly and simultaneously became anxious about their state in relation to a future life is a great fact that cannot be denied, whatever may be the inference therefrom. Meetings are held throughout the town almost every night, and sometimes during the day. These meetings are protracted until the night is far advanced. The meeting places are crowded; churches are filled to overflowing. Unable to gain sitting accommodation, men and women congregate in the lobbies, throng the passages and line the pulpit stairs. The religious services at these meetings are not of an exciting nature, but conducted with the utmost decorum, and general singularly free from extravagances. The meeting is opened in prayer by the pastor of the congregation, after which he calls on the clergymen present, in turn, to read a portion of Scripture, and address a few words to the meeting – generally clergymen from the place, or, as it may happen, a minister from a distance. No critical exposition of the passage read is attempted; but the simple and fundamental truths are clearly stated, and a few earnest exhortations and counsels given. True, these pastors talk solemnly and earnestly – and so they ought. In general, no undue excitement has been manifested by the speakers, and yet scarcely a night goes by but one or two are “stricken down,” prostrated, powerfully affected in body and mind, and made to cry out in anguish of spirit, although the movement is now beginning to assume a milder form, and the manifestations of physical excitement have become less violent. A marked change in the whole walk and conversation of many who have been affected is henceforth visible – plain and palpable to all men.”
Despite the natural scepticism of the journalistic profession the evidence was such that they could not dismiss this as mere “bubble and froth.” Of course if you ere to go there today you might say where is the evidence today? There is another reason why I chose this piece, it is because I found out a couple of years ago I found out that one of my great-grandfathers was born in Saltcoats in 1857. Obviously, he was too young to be affected by it himself, but what about his mother? [His father was a seaman and may not have been by away when the revival broke out.] In the early 1970s my mother was reading a publication called ‘Missionary Circular,’ when she read out to me a letter; it was written by an old lady who recounted an incident when she as a young girl and staying at her grandmother’s house. One day she came downstairs and came upon her grandmother praying in the kitchen and she heard her pray that her grandchildren would become missionaries. I cannot remember all the details but the letter went on to say that while the writer herself had not become a missionary, she stated the number of the grandchildren and their children who had gone out to be missionaries. My mother said that the writer was a cousin of my grandmother. Therefore, that ‘grandmother’ was my great-great-grandmother who had lived in Saltcoats. That is the real evidence of having been in a revival – a prayer life that is vibrant and that it has carried on for 40 years or more. Note, also that the prayer was for future generations and not for herself. One can expect that there will be those that were caught up in the moment of it and they will fall away once the novelty has worn off. But what matters is that at the end of the day there should be evidence that we have run the race.

You can stage a meeting and you can can it a revival but it is no guarantee that a genuine revival will take place. One can argue that with all the distractions that there are in today’s world that it is almost impossible for the scenes of the past to be repeated. Revivals often broke out where the lifestyle was such that whole communities could come together and seek God, but these days with the tendency towards the 24/7 society half the community tends to be at work when the other half are at leisure.
David Rose, 2014.

Posted in History, reflections | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Bad Things Happening to Good People.

Many people ask the question: Why do bad things happen to good people? Atheists tend to rephrase it as Why does a good God allow bad things to good people? They do this because they want to attack the goodness of God rather than listen to the answer. In an absolute sense nobody is perfect and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. When the rich young ruler addressed Jesus as “Good teacher” Jesus questioned him as to why he called him good because only God was good. But on this occasion, at least, he refused to acknowledge that Jesus was God. So really we are talking about comparatively good people suffering setbacks. We can console ourselves with the idea that all things work together for good. That is fine when it happens to someone else but when we are going through the mill then we still tend to have a good whinge at God. The book of Job answers many of these questions concerning suffering. However, there still is a tendency agree with Job’s comforters where we assume that there must be some hidden sin for some tragedy to happen to other people. Even when we come to the New Testament and the parable of the “Good Samaritan.” (Luke chapter 10 verses 25-37.) Remember that this parable was told when the same rich young ruler tried to justify his actions. Its victim is depicted as a sinner because he was going away from God’s Temple and downhill to Jericho, obviously indicating moral decline. Job’s comforters would certainly agree with that view. But would have Job himself? The road between Jerusalem and Jericho was used by many people, including Jesus himself who was without sin. This was the route that Galileans used when going up to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts in great masses. True, the victim was travelling alone but maybe he had attended the Temple worship at one of the festivals and stayed behind to continue to worship. Maybe he was so caught up with worship his attackers could creep up to him unawares. Often we get bushwhacked after a spiritual high point. I can remember many years ago during a period of unemployment that I began to dread going away to special events because I found that on the Monday morning the would be a letter to say that I had failed to get a job I had applied for. More recently I know of a sheep farmer who on returning from a Christian conference found that his sheepdog had been run over. I recently heard David Jeremiah mention during one of his sermons that people were frightened of being too joyful because they were afraid that joy would come to an end with a bump. I can vouch for that. In the Highlands of Scotland you cannot go from one Munro, a mountain over 3000 feet, to another Munro without descending 1000 feet. The parable was told to the rich young ruler who tried to justify himself though we do not know where he was based, he may have confronted Jesus in the Galilee but he might have come from Jerusalem, we do not know. To a Galilean it was natural to return from Jerusalem so they would not associate the misfortune of the victim as being result of sin though somebody based in Jerusalem might of. We are making assumptions here and assumptions can be dangerous. After all travellers on the road would include priests and Levites returning from their spells of duty at the Temple, hardly an example of ‘sinners’. I once read a story concerning Watchman Nee who heard that a severe critic of him had suffered some misfortune. He wrote a letter blaming it on his failings. But before he posted it he ripped it up because he had no peace and wrote another sympathising with him in his troubles instead. Let us not be too hasty to attribute the misfortunes of others to some non-existent imagined sin that we are far more guilty of.
More to the point one has to remember that the only truly “good” man was Jesus and he did not have it easy. He suffered terribly leading up to and during the crucifixion. So who are we to complain when things turn out less than perfect. Bad experiences are painful at the time but we can learn from them. There is the apocryphal story of the little boy who saw a butterfly struggling to emerge from its pupa. He thought it a good thing to cut open the pupa to let it escape. Unfortunately this did not help the butterfly’s wings to develop properly and it was unable to fly. The danger of the pain averse society that we live in, is that there is a part of us that will remain immature mentally and spiritually because we want to live in a pain free cocoon.
David Rose, 2014.

Posted in reflections | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lessons From History 3 – A Question of Kingship.

This year marks the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. This battle is seen as the decisive action of the Scottish War of Independence yet the peace treaty that brought an end to the war was signed in 1328! What took it so long. Simple, the English, or rather their Plantagenet monarchs, refused to recognise the kingship of Robert 1, King of Scots, aka Robert the Bruce. Initially the problem was to accept the reality of the facts on the ground. Even when Edward 11 was murdered by his own subjects and replaced by his son, Edward 111, and most of the English nobility were quite happy for peace, especially those who had lands in the North of England that were subject to Scottish raids, there was reluctance to sue for peace. Tentative negotiations met with a problem, however, because the English addressed their “peace proposals” to Robert the Bruce, “who claims to be the king of Scotland.” The Scots replied that they had to acknowledge that King Robert was THE King of Scotland and that there could no peace otherwise. This resulted in a long drawn out process. Edward 111 only agreed to the peace treaty in the end because of the weakness of his position.

When it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, do you recognise his kingship? When Pilate wrote the charge for the crucifixion it said “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” Jesus’ enemies objected to it and wanted to change it to that he only “claimed” to be their King. We may say that he was just a good man, a sage, a prophet or whatever. Unless we acknowledge the Kingship of Christ how can we be truly saved? True, many a sinner has started out on his spiritual journey without acknowledging it, but if they fall short of saying “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,” as they progress then we should query any profession of faith that they might make. We have admit the weakness of our position as sinners, our need for a Saviour. But if Jesus was just a man and not the Son of God then his death would have been for nothing. There are those who would see Jesus as a person a nice guy who was all love and tolerance and would not offend anybody. But they do not see Him as a person who has real authority over them. Basically they see Him as somebody who is a good example that they can ignore without any consequences. Well, he certainly offending the money-changers when He cleansed the Temple.The Jesus of the Book of Revelation is far from this view:- “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name on him that nobody knows but himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is the Word of God. . . Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, “He will rule them with an iron sceptre.”” Revelation chapter 19 verses 11-5. Do you recognise Him as your King?
The sad thing historically was that after the peace treaty was signed in 1328 King Robert died the following year leaving the kingdom in the hands of his 5 year old son, David 11, and within a few short years war had broken out again. The question has to be asked as to whether Edward 111 really wanted a true peace. Non-believers are often urged to say “the sinner’s prayer”, but for it to be effective, surely the words have to be genuinely meant by the person. There is the danger that in order to add to the number of converts those engaged in evangelism get people to say the prayer before they are ready to genuinely make such a commitment. This may bring a false sense of peace that leads to a disillusion with God and the church that will lead a hostile attitude to God and Christian things. This may leave them in a worse place as to actual salvation than they were before.
David Rose 2014.

Posted in History, reflections | Tagged | Leave a comment