My Adventures with God Ch 41: A Prophecy Fulfilled

Ch 41 A Prophecy Fulfilled

After I was offered a few months work as locum at Vermont I had this prophetic vision that I would become vicar at Vermont and have to do battle with the choir. We had still tried to find accommodation back where we were in Caulfield but to no avail. God who had provided so abundantly a year and a bit before now seemed to have closed off every option.

So we moved the other side of town to Vermont, and rented the now vacant vicarage. Our eldest was now at Melbourne Grammar Senior School which is relatively easy - that is to say bus then train then tram – to get to from Vermont The other three were at Melbourne Grammar's Junior school at Caulfield (Co-educational for those who are wondering) This was not possible by public transport so Sue drove them on her way to and from work at hospital, which being part time she could coordinate.

My first impressions of St' Luke's Anglican Church Vermont were not good.

Before I had a chance to do anything good or bad I met a man at the vicarage beck fence (which bordered the church) who had idolised Jack. My “hello” triggered a torrent of angry abuse in return. The churchwardens explained it away – he was just angry to see anybody in “Jack’s” house. This man continued this violently hostile attitude all the time I was there.

Then there were the Parish Staff. I had built up a team ministry at Lang Lang, so I was looking forward to working with staff, I fondly thought that the weekly staff meeting would be times when we would encourage and build each other up, as it had been with the team at Lang Lang. I could not have been more wrong!

The staff consisted of a “one-quarter time” youth worker, a “half-time” pastoral worker and a “half-time” secretary. There had been a full time curate but he had left at the same time as Jack and parish finances no longer ran to getting another curate (the decline was already showing).

The youth worker, Nick, was an engineer about my age. His thing was explosives and he travelled all over the world consulting. His parish work had to be fitted around this schedule. He was all “alpha male”: lean, muscled, in jeans and T shirt, his already grizzled hair cut short. It was only later that I would learn that he only tolerated one or two males whom he considered no threat in the senior youth group he led. Over the years all other males he pushed out. The resultant group, largely 20’s and 30’s single women I heard referred to as “Nick’s heifers” Nick was married to Jane who was music leader; they had three thoroughly delightful young boys.

The pastoral worker Pam was a single lady in her late twenties. She had been hired a couple of years back on Nick’s recommendation. Together they belonged to a select “community” within the church which was led by Nick. This community seemed an attempt to at least partially re-create the early Jerusalem church model of believers sharing their lives and their possessions. It was a very tightly bonded community.

The secretary Judy was a middle aged mum with semi-grown up children and married to Barrie who lead the “4 wheel drive club” which was very big at the church. Barrie from the start showed his great regret that because no one expected Jack to resign, he had not stood for election as either Churchwarden or Incumbency Committee member. This meant that his “party” in the church was not represented in the selection of a new vicar.

As only a locum I was “under their radar” so to speak. Judy was sweet and efficient. To Nick and Pam, I was just someone who had to be there because of inconvenient church practices which required a priest to celebrate communion - both Sunday morning services were communion. They soon put me in my place. Nick produced the roster he had compiled : I was to preach here and here, lead services here, here, and here. Pam then chipped in, she had planned a preaching theme, they were preaching through a book (not of the bible, a devotional book by someone) and I was to preach on this chapter and that chapter. The evening service was a charismatic “youth” service – which was, as is ironically often the case, attended by people of all ages. And I was down to lead here and here. Nick’s body language made it clear that any questions I had I could keep to myself!

I did have a question. If the evening service was charismatic why did they not ask me what my spiritual gifts were rather than just putting me down on the roster for a bit of everything? At our charismatic service at Bayles I had always preached – that was my particular gift. Ross had always lead the worship – that was his. And having seen someone who really did have a spiritual gift leading worship I knew I could not do it! (well not in any more than in purely human strength.)

My question was answered at the first evening service. For fully ten minutes at one point Nick, who was leading kept the congregation on their knees in silent prayer while he coaxed “I sense one of you has a word from the Lord, come forward”. For ten minutes!

I had read very widely and this behaviour corresponded to something I had read described by Watchman Nee the famous Chinese Pentecostal. Nee termed this behaviour “Soul-ish” - ie it is what happens when the Holy Spirit is not acting and humans are trying to fake it! I had also seen real “words from the Lord” – they didn’t have to be coaxed like that! Some of the “Caring Christians” girls at Lang Lang had found God used them to mutually counsel each other. Frequently one would say later “I just opened my mouth and all these words came out” Typically the person being counselled would on hearing the words burst into tears and say “yes that is true, but you couldn’t possibly have known that about me” and there would be real healing.

What I saw at this first evening service was so fake that it made me angry! Next evening I went to see Nick and said in a more diplomatic way what I have outlined above. Wow! He really did not take criticism kindly! In fact he did not take criticism at all! I was sent packing in short order. His attitude is best explained by something he said to me much later – when I was the vicar of the parish. He said to me: “You were only appointed by the human Church; I was appointed to lead this congregation by God!” That was indeed his attitude right through!

Otherwise the locum months were uneventful. After a while the Parish incumbency committee unanimously agreed they had found their man: me. The bishop did not. He had someone else in mind. The Incumbency committee were all men who pre-dated Nick and the others who had arrived once the church was successful. one was “crispy” evangelical, one moderately Charismatic and one very Charismatic. They had prayed together been convinced together and now faced off against the diocese together. They prevailed and I was appointed.

When it was announced in church there were cheers – except for Nick’s supporters some of whom openly wept.

As a “PS” the incumbency members told me Jack had planned to get rid of both Nick and Pam, and advised me to take the archbishop’s offer of the parish on the condition that they were moved to positions in other churches. I didn’t. Would it have made any difference in the end? I think not, but you may judge for yourself.

My Adventures with God: 41: God Changes my Plans

Chapter 41 ... God Changes my Plans

Towards the end of 1990 it was obvious that our finances were not going to hold out for me to do a Ph.D.

To cut a long story short I came to that sad conclusion that the “Ph.D.” bit of it had been more in the line of my take on what God wanted. His plan seemed to more along the lines of a one year sabbatical. And just to make sure I got the message there was our bank balance slowly but surely dwindling away. I got the message and I eventually even gave in!

So I went to see a Melbourne bishop (one did not easily get to see the archbishop!). He was sympathetic but pointed out that right now they had a glut of priests, and what jobs there were had to go to Melbourne men (I was from the 'foreign' diocese of Gippsland!). He did however think he might be able to put a locum or two my way.

He did. And I was hired to fill in a vacant parish for a few months until the new vicar arrived. All right, I had forgotten: parish ministry was fun!

After that he offered a locum at the recently vacated parish of St. Luke’s Vermont. Now comes the scary bit. I had a revelation. I cannot recall, if indeed I ever understood, its exact mechanism. I think it was a sort of a vision. Anyway the content was that a) it was God’s purpose, which he would carry out, that I would become vicar of Vermont and b) I would have a fight with the choir or musicians (I’m not sure which it was).

What could I say? That did not sound exactly enticing, but God had a gun (or rather a bank balance) at my head – and besides I was by now mostly in the habit of doing what he asked, after the usual amount of “kicking and screaming” of course.

We were still living at Caulfield. If I had doubts that God was serious, the owners managed to sell their house, and we were, understandably, given notice. I thought we should move into the vicarage “while I was locum”. Sue thought differently. Well the vicarage was new, and in many ways an ideal vicarage, but aesthetically it was – well “barren” is the word that comes to mind! We tried hard to find another house to rent in Caulfield. (Perhaps Jonah had similar, though of course much stronger, feelings) Eventually even Sue had to accept that “a house in Caulfield” (wasn’t going to happen.

When you are in the habit of obeying God he is tremendously kind and considerate if you occasionally dig in your heels and try to go the wrong way. He just shuts the gate until you have thought better of it! That is infinitely kinder than letting you go ahead and make a mess of things believe me! So eventually we gave in and asked if we could rent the vicarage while I was to be locum. The Church Wardens agreed and we moved in.

I will describe our experiences at Vermont more or less chronologically over the following chapters. But since we were presented with a baffling puzzle which seemed to change and shift every time we thought we had a handle on it, and which took all our skill and energies for four or so years, I will make life easier for readers. I will give you now, at the beginning, my “in a nutshell” analysis which is the fruits of those first years of strenuous effort constantly trying to solve the puzzle, and the further distillation of nearly two decades of hindsight.

My predecessor had been there ten years. He had done something very similar to what we had done in the first two or three years at Lang Lang, but over a slightly longer time scale.

What he had built up was better integrated and more stable as he had not had the problem of trying to mix different social strata (suburbs tend to be socially homogeneous whereas country towns are socially heterogeneous and very distinctly stratified) also the longer period allowed adjustments to be made.

His achievement was really impressive. I may have this wrong, but I think he trebled the size of the church. Anyway at its peak (which was about four years before he left) there were over three hundred people attending every Sunday. A really impressive achievement.

Vermont had understandably gained a diocese wide reputation as a leading Evangelical – Charismatic church. The late Archbishop Penman had enjoyed attending it when he could. To everyone outside this was a model church, but in fact like Lang Lang, it contained the seeds of its own destruction. It was already past its peak. Whoever followed Jack Humphries was going to be blamed for the inevitable crash. A crash that they probably could see coming let alone prevent.

Part of the problem was that just as Bayles fellowship had attracted a “wolf” when it became known as a place where things were happening, so Vermont had attracted, if not actual wolves, then at least people infected by wrong ideas and motives.

These people had come to the now big and impressive church over the past four or five years. They had come as staff and as parishioners. They were better at “office politics” and at promoting themselves than the people who had actually worked with Jack to build up the church to what it had become. So they replaced these people in key and “up front” church roles. They thought of themselves as a spiritual elite, but the were really not a patch on the people they had supplanted.

The next problem was they had introduced doctrinal error. The “original” team that had helped Jack build up the church were – at least the ones I met were absolutely sound. Some were crispy Evangelical some were very Charismatic even Pentecostal but they were tremendous people and I could not fault their Christian and moral excellence. The newbies who had supplanted them exhibited all the problems of Charismatic-theology-gone-wrong I had faced at Bayles.

As one grows to maturity as a Christian, God deals with your vices and weaknesses in the order he determines so one should not generalise too much, but worship of “self” – self centered-ness, self aggrandisement, self adulation, selfishness, being easily offended and so on – is so antithetical to the character of Jesus that it usually comes under the hammer sooner rather than later. These people were living and promoting a gospel of “self” but thought they were more “spiritual” than everyone else

I can caricature their beliefs this way:

True Christianity says:

“I know Jesus loves me because he died for me - This means he is the most wonderful Being and so I will get rid of that old selfish me and live to please him.

They said:

“I know Jesus loves me because he died for me – this means I must be the most wonderful being and so I should go on living to please me”

So close and yet so far apart!

In hindsight, the special aspect of the “mission” God had in mind for me at Vermont was this:
I was to rescue his church and as many people as possible from this false doctrine. Additionally this would have to be done whilst trying to survive and even stave off the collapse of the church which was already in progress due to its pre-existing problems.

In hindsight, this was always going to be a suicide mission!

My Adventures with God: 39: A Leap of Faith

Chapter 39 A Leap of Faith

While I was doing research on the morality of abortion and lamenting the paucity of Anglican moral thinkers a conviction was growing. I began to think that I should go back to university and study moral philosophy and try to plug this gap.

I talked to Sue about it and she supported the idea. By cashing in my superannuation we could fund ourselves for a bit. Sue was able to work some now, and doctors can always find work, so we could feasibly do it and keep the kids at private schools, which was important to us.

I talked to the Philosophy department at Melbourne University and they made encouraging noises. The first step since I had a master’s degree in engineering, not arts, would be a catch-up year – basically taking 150% of a normal undergraduate load. Obviously I would select philosophy and ethics subjects from all year levels. It was starting to sound possible.

Obviously Sue and I both prayed about it because it really was a leap in the dark. We both thought it was what God wanted us to do. So we decided to do it.

I went to see the bishop and told him my plans. Whatever he may have thought, he made positive comments. He said he would appoint a “senior clergyman” to Lang Lang. I thought by this that he realised the importance of what we has achieved there and was assuring me he would find a high calibre replacement. But no. I was mistaken. Subsequent events demonstrated that he meant he saw no future for the parish and would put in a clergyman who was approaching his “use-by date”!

After I left the bishop appointed a half time locum minister who disbanded all the youth ministry because he was not interested in young people, didn’t teach RE in the schools for the same reason, and let our hard won achievements waste away. Despite some sound, if elderly, rectors serving there, in time the parish declined and was amalgamated with a neighbouring one. I seems to me that the Diocese was simply not interested in preaching the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ to all people in their area! Of course they said they were, but in reality what they wanted was to continue doing things their way and have God fall into line with their plans and priorities. When God demonstrated - as he did through our efforts – a way he was prepared to back, they would not see.

But back to the story

I sent in my official resignation, which the bishop duly accepted “with regret”.

Now starts the interesting bit. We had still to get the kids into schools and find somewhere to live. We settled on Melbourne Grammar, which is one of the most prestigious schools in Melbourne. When Sue went to see the bursar he laughed and said “You have got to be joking! People put their children’s names down almost before they are born to get into this school! We cannot possibly take your children” He mentioned in passing that as they were an Anglican school they did have special arrangements for children of Anglican priests and that perhaps if the bishop gave a recommendation they could consider us further. Sue rang up the bishop who very kindly wrote to the school. The bursar rang Sue and said “We appear to be taking you children, I do hope they are at least bright!”

One problem solved.

Sue was offered a half time position as a doctor at Bethlehem Hospital in Caulfield. Another problem solved.

Since both the hospital and Melbourne Grammar’s junior school were at Caulfield, this narrowed our search for an area to live in. But we could not find a house. We searched. We called on all the estate agents. We looked at everything that was offering. We felt God was saying “no” to all of them (which was a relief because they were not nice).

We set the move date. We booked a removal team. But we still did not have a house to go to!

Sue, as I said several times is very up-front with God. This time she prayed and gave specifics of what she would like in the house! There were five things she asked God for: A nice house; a house with five bedrooms; a house on a tram line to Melbourne Grammar; it had to be near a park; it should ideally also have a tennis court.

God was incredibly kind and indulgent to us.

We did the rounds of the estate agents yet again – now only two days before our moving date! One said “Oh I have this one which is just on the market. People bought it but could not sell their old house, so the want to rent it out for a year, it is not really a rental property at all.”

The house was a really cute Californian Bungalow with a modern addition on the back so it had all the cuteness factor of an old house with a modern family area and … guess what! Five bedrooms! It was convenient to Bethlehem Hospital where Sue was to work, it was just by the tram line which ran Past the Melbourne Grammar Junior school, and which continued on past the Senior School where our eldest would go, and then on through the city centre to Melbourne University where I was to study! And the beautiful Caulfield park was just a few hundred yards away. It had all the things she asked for except one. Sue had cheekily asked God for a tennis court. No it didn’t have a tennis court. The tennis court which was over the back fence was owned and maintained by the council and could be hired – so I think that counts as even better!

So many times the sheer overflowing magnitude of Gods kindness just swamps me. There we were, we had in Sue's depression and the other attacks of the devil “passed through the valley of the shadow of death” but through God we had survived. We were still together as a family. The kids were going to be in one of the best schools. We were renting this absolutely beautiful house in a lovely garden suburb. God had just been so kind.

So February 1990 we moved to Melbourne for our next adventure with God.

My Adventures With God: Ch 38: I cause a riot

Chapter 38

I Cause a Near Riot in Synod

A funny thing happened just before the 1988 Diocesan Synod.

I was tending the roses in the big circular rose bed I had made at the Lang Lang Rectory. I don’t think I was thinking anything of note. Suddenly I was sure God was telling me he wanted to put a motion to synod. That in itself was a worry. But the content was worse. He wanted me to put a motion saying that “abortion on demand” which was the catch-cry of the day was wrong. I had not previously even thought of activism on this issue. I was not sanguine of success. But I was obedient and I sent in the motion.

When the time came to speak to my motion I was rather nervous. I started my speech. I never got to finish it I was howled down by shouts of rage and fury. How dare I question “a woman’s right to abortion”! As I recall Gideon got a similar response when he pulled down the altar to Baal in his home town!

The motion never went to a vote. The bishop suggested Synod refer the matter to the Social Responsibilities Committee for a report to the next Synod. I was seconded to the Committee.

The Chairman of the committee was a very deft politician and knew how to manipulate a committee. He made it quite clear at the first meeting that the final report would be unashamedly pro-abortion. But we went through the motions of looking into the topic. Several reports from other Anglican dioceses were circulated. Apart from the Sydney diocese one (which incidentally was well and intelligently written) they were all pro-abortion and all complete rubbish.

These Anglican reports got to me in a big way. They were all complete balderdash! Worse, they were smugly self satisfied with woolly thinking and sheer obstinate ignorance.

I had been going back to the Monash University library to read up on this topic. Monash was the home of professor Peter Singer and Helga Khuse who were noted pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia campaigners, so the library was well stocked with pro-abortion writings. But at least these writers had thought about the issue. I might think they were wrong, but I would not accuse them of being ignorant.

By contrast the Anglican papers were so poorly thought out and so lacking any attempt to find out what the argument was about that they would have got an instant fail as a first year essay! These Anglican writers could and should be accused of “pig ignorance”!

I thought: “This is not good enough! The church should have something to say on moral questions affecting large proportions of the population! The church should have people who have at least understood what secular moralists on both sides were saying. The church should not be smugly self satisfied at putting out drivel that a first year student would be embarrassed to write!” I was angry!

I spent more time in the Monash library. Yes they did have books on both sides of the question, but more importantly for me they had statistics! A lot of the pro-abortion arguments had been special pleading “Oh the terrible plight of the woman pregnant due to rape” …. Well how often does that happen? Should that be what the rules are based on, or should it just be an “exceptional circumstance” in which the rule is waived? Or again “Oh, the mothers who die because they are not allowed an abortion by heard hearted (male) priests”. Well that would be indeed terrible, but just what proportion of abortions currently are on the grounds of medical necessity to save the mothers life? Does anyone know?

There is an old adage “Hard cases make bad laws”. Was this happening on this issue, or were these “hard cases” the norm. Untill then writers world wide didn’t really know because there were just no reliable statistics. I found they did exist, and that they existed in Australia!

South Australia had made abortion legal, but they had required doctors to submit certain details for statistical analysis. This had been done over a period of I think about ten years and the statistics were analysed and published by the government medical officers involved. The results were stunning. In Australia at the most generous assessment 95% of abortions were carried out not for any of the “hard case” reasons given by lobbyists, but because it was economically or socially inconvenient for the mother to give birth to a live baby.

I also found that even communist governments were concerned at rising abortion rates – not out of any moral qualms but just as a women’s health issue, and researchers had been looking at changes needed to be made in working and domestic conditions to reduce the abortion rate. Given this I found the Anglican Church’s fanatical pro-abortion stance puzzling. They were not truly helping women by their dogmatic stance.

I am jumping forward a bit but I prepared a “dissenting report” which detailed the results of my research, I sent a copy to the bishop but I heard no more. Its style is much more analytical and reflective the style of the research papers I had been reading at that time than the later one which I wrote while studying moral philosophy at Melbourne University, but you can download both from www.Anglicanfuture.org

My Adventures with God Ch 37: More Miracles

Ch 37: More Miracles

To re-cap: From our “back to the drawing board” experience we were re-building the church. Sociology had given us valuable insights, but the actual details came as answered prayer to our little prayer group. Spiritually and numerically the parish was growing. But what the diocese needed to see was growth measured in dollars – lots and lots of dollars.

I had stood firm against fund-raising when people wanted to do that instead of evangelism. But this was different, we had previously done the evangelism very successfully: now we needed some miracle money to convince the diocese we were on the right track. But you know what God is like: he does so much better than we can imagine or dare to ask!

In our family we have a saying “For God two-birds-with-one-stone is still wasting stones”. In this instance God raised money and built up the morale and numbers of the congregation at the same time.

Here is how:

Inez and Sue – but since they were both great prayers I should say “and God” – made a formidable team. Gala events were planned. The congregations were still small but we had huge numbers of people in the community who would gladly help out at grand events.

And grand they were! We believed that these events had to be fun for the workers and give them a great sense of achievement and being part of a winning team. This meant grand scale, good planning, effective team and morale building and really obvious success. People had to have fun and be proud to have been part of the team pulling off such a big successful event.

We might spend sleepless nights, but the team had to know they were supported, valued and they had to believe it would work!

Our first grand event was a Gala Fashion Show (with dinner of course). Now we had a fashion show each year at the flower festival with local women modelling clothes from Sparrows Emporium – a great thing but we were thinking bigger, much bigger! One of Inez’s friends in the district, Dulcie had been a top model in her youth: she still had contacts. We were getting real models, actual high fashion clothes, the correct trappings of catwalk and music. The real thing!

Next came the dinner part: we had lots of volunteers, and all those women who had gone into other churches, and some of the others from those churches who thought we were, as one lady said “A breath of fresh air” cooked and baked (yes including a Uniting Church lady who was the undisputed best sponge baker in the district – Vera of our church was undisputed second best)

For wait staff we put out the call and the town young people rallied, they brushed up exceedingly well in the natty black and white uniforms we got hold of somehow. I think about 30 of them rolled up!

It was stunning! Financially it was hugely successful. In team building it was amazing. In satisfaction level for the gang … you only had to look at their faces! They were exhausted but they had been part of something big!

We only did these really big things annually – the next year the theme was picnic races – still in the Lang Lang civic hall. But people got gourmet picnic hampers, a course of hurdles (and a water hazard) was set up round the hall. For safety riders ran behind their (human) horses with reins connecting them. I am told the town’s real life SP (illegal off-course) bookie was running the betting shop and everyone was given Monopoly money to bet with. Another howling success! I even won the “Lang Lang Cup” cup (I was the horse) elegantly made by one of the parishioners from a jam tin and fencing wire.

In between we catered for weddings with much smaller teams, and put on other social events. The men from the pub who I had talked to in the old days sitting in John’s barn – and their friends turned out to help wash up and things like that – since we often borrowed the glasses from the hotel they had a vested interest in getting them spotless! The barmaid I mentioned earlier was one of the team – the first time she helped at a “do” I remember the look on Jan’s face when she came out in her miniscule black skirt and fishnet stockings and see-through white blouse! I didn’t think people could really turn purple! I also thought some of the old men were going to have heart attacks – but for the opposite reason.

Having mentioned Jan I realise I have been remiss. I have only described the new fundraising ventures. I need to give due credit to Jan and the rest of the Ladies Guild who had for years been faithfully ploughing on, and were still hard at work doing their various fundraisings.

By the end of six months, yes we were still in debt but we were definitely gaining ground. In the analogy I used of a swing we were now on the down-stroke and gathering speed! It was a success. The diocesan bean counters were still sceptical. But we said we’d won our bet. And continuing improvement of the financial position as the months rolled by showed we were right. Also the church was growing, not the rapid expansion of the early days but good solid and above all stable growth. We had proved the sociological research findings right! More important we had been another demonstration that God is faithful. 

William Wilberforce, 1797 book condensed: Chapter IV Section II (A)

Chapter IV Section II (A)

Just how Christian are most “Christians” (In England in 1797)

Here are some dysfunctions I see scattered in differing measures and combinations throughout our population.

First let me say that true religion is in the heart. It reigns supreme in the heart and gradually expels all that is contrary to it until it brings all the persons passions and desires under its control.

Many people who call themselves “Christians” are not like this. Will they let God into every part of their lives? No way! They are like this:

They start by seeing religion as a list of prohibitions. If we picture their lives as a farm, we could say they see religion like someone saying the dam is dangerous – so they put a fence around it – but then do what they like with the rest of the farm. Even then they often go to the fence and look longingly at the dam!

Some take the next step: they admit religion has some positive claim on them. Back to the farm picture we could say they fence off a small area for native animals - then they do what they like with the rest. In real life these people set aside a portion – be it small or big – of their time, money, effort and so forth as belonging to God, then fee free to do whatever they want with the rest. They may be stingy and only go to church on Sunday and put a little in the plate or they may tithe a tenth of their income, and perhaps give to charity beyond that. They may be much more generous with their time: go to church twice on Sunday, and Bible study or church committee meetings during the week, even daily prayer. But the crunch is this: after paying their perceived “dues” to God everything else belongs to them to do exactly what they like with.

Big mistake! Huge! This is not true Christianity.

If promoting the glory of God and possessing his favour is our highest regard then nothing short of giving God control over the whole farm will do. Every, yes every, aspect, part and moment of our lives – all that we are and all that we have – must be given to God. Yes, we must trust God. Trust that he cares for us, trust that he knows our needs and human obligations better than we do ourselves and that he will use his lordship over our lives in a way that will fulfil all these. Conversely, when people only give God part of their lives they are really saying they don't trust him!

“...we find in fact that the generality of mankind among the higher order, in the formation of their schemes, in the selection of their studies, in the choice of their place of residence, in the employment and distribution of their time, in their thoughts, conversation and amusements, are considered as being at liberty, if there be no actual vice, to consult in the main their own gratification.”

So instead of Christianity in all its beauty, we are left with a “decent” selfishness. A life frittered away in idleness or self-centred activities. A claim that “we are not hurting anyone, we are not neglecting our family or civic duties – so why should we not seek pleasure!”

Some “Christians” forget that health is only a meant to an end – useful labour! They make the pursuit of “health” their goal, and even their god.

“Others again seem more to attach themselves to what have been well termed the “pomps and vanities of this world”. Magnificent houses, grand equipages, numerous retinues, splendid entertainments, high and fashionable connections appear to constitute in their estimation the supreme happiness of life.”

Others again let ambition or avarice rule the parts of their lives they keep from God. They let the cares of this world and the pursuit of advancement, power or money squeeze God further and further out of their day-to-day lives.

Still others pursue other ends – learning, art, science – to name a few. These are noble but they must not be in the highest place in our attention and our lives. We look forward to eternity: God must be our supreme good and our supreme goal

William Wilberforce 1797 book condensed: Ch IV Sect I (B)

Chapter IV

On the prevailing inadequate conceptions concerning the nature and the strictness of practical Christianity

Sect. I (B)

“It is the grand essential practical characteristic of true Christians, that relying on the promises to repenting sinners of acceptance through the Redeemer, they have renounced and abjured all other masters, and have fervently and unreservedly devoted themselves to God. … Christians are become the sworn enemies of sin; they will henceforth hold no parley with it, they will allow it in no shape, they will admit it in no composition; the war they have denounced against it is fervent, universal, irreconcilable.”

Christians give themselves without reserve to please Christ: they are not their own; all they are and all they have now belong to Jesus. None of this is now for their own gratification. Everything – abilities, skills, money, time, authority, influence – all is now consecrated to the honour of God and dedicated to the service of God.

Their minds belong to Christ: “we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ”

Their lives: “He died for all that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who dies for them and was raised again”

True in this life for all our efforts we fail to live up to this. But it remains our fixed desire to daily improve in all holiness. We know that: “without holiness no one will see the Lord” This is the description of true Christian: “We are being transformed into his image with ever increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”

It is not just about fear of misery or desire for happiness. These do have their place – but a lower one: the main thing is a passionate desire to please God. As a creature to please its Creator certainly, but more than that: Love. “We love God because he first loved us”. We love God because we have glimpsed the infinite beauty of his nature. We love God as “Our Father”.

“This is the Christian love of God! A love compounded of admiration, of preference, of hope, of trust, of joy; chastised by reverential awe, and wakeful with continual gratitude.”

I don't want to wound any weak but sincere believer. You may not exactly fit this pattern. We are all different and different aspects of what I described may come to the fore in different people. The bottom line is this: a) determination to serve God, b) desire for growth in holiness, c) confessing how unworthy and how fallible we are.

Now my objector may say: “Very good, but you are describing “Super Christian”! Ordinary Christians don't need to aim that high!”

Yes, they do! The Bible casts its precepts in the broadest and most general terms. It never suggests anyone is “above the law”. Think about it. You wouldn't get far with that plea in a human court: why do you think God would fall for such a weak excuse.

Look at the uncompromising language of the Bible; “You are not your own, you were bought at a price”. We are commanded to do the most difficult things “That you may be children of you Father who is in heaven”. Which can only be achieved by complete transformation: “No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” … “you must be born again.”

There is plenty more in the Bible: Everywhere Christians are described as children and servants of God with the requirement of obedient service that those close relationships entail.

Look at the well known passage: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind and with all your strength.” No amount of fast talking can make that sound as though ordinary Christians only have to meet some mediocre standard!

Idolatry. It is the number one sin in the Old Testament. The sin that really got up God's nose and the one his people were most prone to. They always tried to have God and their idols. God said firmly and repeatedly: “No way!” God won't have anything in our lives compete with wholehearted devotion to him. We are not just talking figurines of wood stone and metal here: we are talking whatever in our minds and hearts competes with God. All those self-centred desires we nurture and feed have to go. Even proper duties and affections have to come second to God: “Whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”.

God will have nothing less than wholehearted zeal: “because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth”

“It is not in bowing the knee to idols that idolatry consists so much as as in the internal homage of the heart – as in the feeling towards them any of that supreme love, or reverence, or gratitude which God preserves to himself as his own exclusive prerogative. On the same principle, whatever draws off the heart from him, engrosses our prime regard, and holds chief place in our esteem and affections, that … is no less an idol to us than an image of wood or stone would be before which we should fall down and worship.”

So: stop trying to water down what God requires! Nothing less than fervent unreserved devotion to him and to serving his glory will do!