Skip to content

3

fountainImagine it.  Imagine that the Father is eternally sending forth Himself in Word and Spirit.  Imagine that He is a spreading goodness.  Imagine that He is infinite plenitude rather than infinite need.  Imagine He is a Fountain of outgoing love.  What then?

Well, for one thing, let's ask ourselves, how should we correspond to God the Giver?  Surely the most fundamental answer must be: by receiving.  Or to put it another way, the work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent. Or again, we might say that the righteous shall live by faith.  Life in relationship with the Giver is a life of receiving.

But notice therefore that the first thing to which I'm called is not worship but faith.  Of course I am called to worship, but it is the worship that is shaped by a prior commitment to receive the grace of God in Jesus Christ.  We love because He first loved us.

Why do I labour this point?

I labour it, because it seems to me that another point is laboured beyond proper proportions.  And that is the concept of idolatry.

I'm forever hearing that idolatry is the key to the Christian life.  I need to identify my idols and turn from them, returning to the true God.  The underlying assumption seems to be that false worship is the problem, true worship will be the solution.

There's a lot of diagnostic gain to be had in following this insight.  My mind is a factory of idols.  And this does betray and perpetuate my disordered desires.  But we haven't yet diagnosed the underlying problem if we've only seen it as a problem of worship.

First of all I am a receiver.  Therefore first of all I have failed to receive my life, my identity, my joy, my purpose from Christ.

Let's put this in the language of Jeremiah 2:13:

My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.

Sometimes people articulate the problem of idolatry the way the LORD does - as a double-sin.  But often I hear idolatry defined merely as well-digging.  i.e. they diagnose my problem simply as offering myself to the wrong thing.  Yet before that sin there is a primary sin - forsaking the Fountain!  And, pastorally speaking, we miss out hugely if we put the focus on the broken wells.

If my problem is diagnosed as "giving myself to career in an idolatrous fashion" then you might convince me that this is foolish, even that it's blasphemous.  But my heart is not yet ready to trust Christ as the Fountain of Living Waters.  Instead it will seem to me that God is a Taker who is even more demanding than my career.  You might tell me that this is perfectly proper since God is the Ultimate Boss, but my thirsty soul won't buy it.

What's more, you may be participating in the greatest of idolatries - you may be painting God as, ultimately, Taker rather than Giver.  And implicitly you may be pointing me to a false gospel.  For if the problem is "offering myself to a false god", there's a distinct danger that the implied solution will be "offering myself to the real God."  But that is not the gospel.  The gospel is the real God offering Himself for me.  And my real sin is refusing His thirst-slaking Spirit.

But if we fight the double-sin of idolatry it will mean not only facing the worship-denial of well-digging.  Even more deeply, it will mean facing the thirst-denial of forsaking the Fountain.

I have deep longings which I crave. And that craving is not sinful (it might be, but it might not be). Actually my thirst-denial might be the really sinful thing. I might be trying to protect myself from how desperately I want life to work and how disappointed I am. If the Lord is a Fountain then denying my thirst might be an even bigger sin than digging a broken well, mightn't it? But I might not get in touch with that if I keep getting told that my problem is my desires.

Those who think of themselves as more conservative, theologically, can get uncomfortable when you talk about thirst and the sin of thirst-denial. Perhaps it sounds like a capitulation to felt needs. But if the Lord is a Fountain then how we are receiving the Living Waters (or not) is even more important than how we're replacing them.

Remember - the answer to Jeremiah 2 is not to start digging in the right place (as opposed to the wrong place). The answer is to face your thirst and stop digging!

The real way to fight idolatry is to return to the Source of Living Waters.  "Repentance" - "metanoia" - "change of mind" (all one word), is looking again to the outstretched arms of Jesus and seeing that God is Giver. This is what revolutionizes hearts and minds - drinking from the Fountain.

2

JesusHere are three talks given recently for students in the south west. Taken from Colossians, they are shaped around three questions:

1. What do you think of when you think of God?

2. What do you think of when you think of Jesus?

3. What does God think of when He thinks of you?

POWERPOINT

 

1

TEP-PodcastCover-1024x1024Andy and I are in a series discussing online evangelism. Last week we spoke to Gavin Tyte about just living out our passions authentically and allowing our love for Jesus to naturally flow. This week we think about more intentional online witness.

Matt Rich runs a chat helpline website called Groundwire that connects with hundreds of people a month, answering questions about the Christian faith, and pointing people to Jesus through their local church.

I think Groundwire is a fascinating example of how pastoral care and evangelism coincide. If you ask me evangelism is pastoral care and pastoral care is evangelism. Our churches and our mission will be a lot healthier when we make those links.

SUBSCRIBE

DOWNLOAD

5

imageThus says the Lord God, It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name.. . . And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name. . . . And the nations will know that I am the Lord. (Ezekiel 36:22-2332)

If God's glory is His grace (and it is), then what does it mean for God to act for the sake of His own name or glory. Obviously we're not talking here of the self-absorbed omni-god of philosophy. We're talking about the Father who has always found His life and identity in pouring out His very Spirit to His Son. We're talking about the God who, in eternity, has determined to be the adopting-by-grace-God. What does it mean for this God to act for His own sake, His own name, His own glory?

I've used this illustration often, but I think it's instructive... A friend of mine was approaching a set of doors and heard high-heels behind him. He stopped to open the door for the woman behind him. As she passed through she shot him a glare: "I hope you're not opening the door because I'm a lady." With enviable quick thinking he replied, "No, I'm opening the door because I'm a gentleman."  Boom!

Not for your sake, not for your sake am I acting, but for the sake of my holy name. Not because you are a Damsel in distress, but because I am a Gentleman. I do not act because you have forced my hand, twisted my arm, or tugged at my heart strings. I act from my own determination to be chivalrous.

That's what it means for God to act for His own sake. Not at all that God is self-centred. On the contrary God is so gloriously self-giving that He refuses to have His gracious salvation construed as merely a response to our plight. It's not that He's a sucker for a sinner. It's not that He can't help Himself when He sees our need and so sighs and embarks on a saving mission. It's not because we're a lady, it's cos He's a Gentleman.

God acts from fullness. That's pretty much the heart of what it means that God acts for His own sake. He is a Fountain brimming over, not a Water Tank to be drawn down.

Therefore what is godliness? It is all about acting from fullness.  Before God we are empty (cf the first 4 beatitudes - poor, mourning, meek, hungry). Before the world we are poured out (cf the last 4 beatitudes - showing mercy, purity, peace and righteousness). From fullness we flow out to the world.

When I get the time I'll write about how this dynamic plays out in church life, in family life, in loving our neighbours, in reaching the world. But for now I hope it's obvious that 'God acting for His own sake' is not a special dispensation to be selfish which God reserves for Himself. It's not about His own self-regard which is ok for Him but not ok for us. Actually, we should follow God in acting for the sake of our holy name because such actions are not demonstrations of self-regard but of the kind of self-giving that comes from fullness.

 

 

 

5

TEP-PodcastCover-1024x1024This is the first of two interviews with Graham Miller from London City Mission. Next week we'll talk about online witness. This week we discuss the work of London City Mission and the evangelistic task facing us all.

Here are just some of the striking things Graham said in the interview...

We can draw a false dichotomy between loving people and sharing Christ. The need is to be 100% Christian...

We have a kind of clericalism in our churches where everyone leaves things up to the paid staff.

We've bought into a friendship evangelism model which means we end up sharing the gospel only with people like us.

The  huge need in evangelism is to challenge our idols and get a lot more godly.

We need to set time aside to spend with our neighbours and we need to be ready to share our testimony. Most people could have a go at sharing something about the gospel but we need to be in those relationships. It's only a very short step from a conversation about something important to spiritual matters.

In my time in China, the pastor was a cheerleader for everyone else's evangelism. Over here we employ a youth pastor to look after 8 kids which is a very expensive way of doing ministry. We train up 20 year olds  to be able to teach kids Romans and Luke rather than send out all our 20 somethings to kick a ball around with the kids.

If you look in the book of Acts, Stephen rolled up his sleeves and  served tables when he was an exceptional evangelist himself. Anyone who gets past Stephen's level can be set aside specially for a preaching and prayer ministry. But if you're not at Stephen's level - and I haven't met any preacher better than Stephen - you should muck in and wait on tables with everyone else.

 

DOWNLOAD

 

8

ladder-to-heavenThere's a famous short piece by JC Ryle called "Suppose an Unholy Man Went to Heaven." It's only about a thousand words but it's had a wide influence. I've heard it quoted approvingly a number of times.

Ryle begins:

Suppose for a moment that you were allowed to enter heaven without holiness. What would you do? What possible enjoyment could you feel there? To which of all the saints would you join yourself and by whose side would you sit? Their pleasures are not your pleasures, their tastes are not your tastes, their character not your character. How could you possibly be happy, if you had not been holy on earth?

The bishop then spells out the heavenly life in stark contrast to earthly pleasures. Therefore...

heaven would be a miserable place to an unholy man. It cannot be otherwise. People may say, in a vague way, they "hope to go to heaven", but they do not consider what they say... We must be heavenly-minded, and have heavenly tastes, in the life that now is, or else we shall never find ourselves in heaven, in the life to come.

If all this sounds like salvation by works, Ryle has a verse: "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).

He repeats the verse again and again - it seems pretty much the foundation of his case. But he ignores the way holiness (or "sanctification" - same word) is used throughout Hebrews - 2:11; 9:13; 10:10; 10:14; 10:29; 13:12.  In virtually every case it's a declared status, won through the sanctifying sacrifice of Christ (e.g. "we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb 10:10)).

In only one of the verses cited above is sanctification mentioned as an ongoing process - but even then the process is anchored to a definitive salvation:

By one sacrifice Christ has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:14)

It's true we must be holy to see the Lord. It's also true - and the whole book of Hebrews proclaims it - that Christ's sacrifice alone gives us that holiness. Yet Ryle seems to want to locate this saving quality within us.

He understands that folks might protest at this. So he addresses the objection we all feel...

You may say, it is impossible to be so holy and to do our duty in this life at the same time: the thing cannot be done. I answer, "You are mistaken." It can be done. With Christ on your side nothing is impossible.

Did somebody say infused grace? And make no mistake, the thing to be achieved here is heaven itself. If anyone complains at this achievement of glory, Ryle reminds us...

It is in religion as it is in other things, there are no gains without pains. That which costs nothing is worth nothing.

There it is - no pain, no gain. And finally the whole thing is unmasked - it's actually a very worldly way of considering holiness! Religion is like all other things, a costly, painful achievement which we make on our way to heaven. Surely Ryle is not being heavenly-minded enough! Surely he's not considering spiritual things spiritually. In the end, doesn't he prop up the whole enterprise on a carnal foundation? Holiness is like everything else, the achievement of hard work.

It seems to me that Ryle isn't being spiritual enough. Now it's true that Ryle says more in his book "Holiness." And there he stresses that holiness comes in Christ alone and he counsels us to seek it in Christ. But there's also all this stuff as well which, if you ask me, seriously undermines the 'Christ alone' teaching he wants to uphold.

Where does it go wrong?

Well fundamentally, in these teachings, everything important about holiness gets located in us and not in Jesus. And from that foundational error flows a characteristic problem with Ryle's presentation. For Ryle the "holy" trajectory for everything seems to be in and up and later.  'Come in out of the world, lift yourself up into heaven so that later you'll enjoy salvation.' All godly travel is coming in from the nasty world and up into glory, white-knuckling it now because later it'll be worth it.

But if Jesus Christ - the Holy One of Israel - defines holiness for us, we get a very different picture.  Because we are so carnal and unable to work up a holiness of our own, therefore Christ descends with His sanctifying love that reaches outwards and downwards, to be felt now. Holiness is Jesus-shaped. It means being met in our filth now, cleansed, and then swept along with Jesus to extend ourselves out into an unclean world, stooping down to the gutters of this world and in this way experiencing now the life of heaven.

It's really not about preparing ourselves for heaven later - it's about living the heavenly life now: the life of self-forgetful, neighbour-loving, cheek-turning, enemy-forgiving love.  That's holiness. It's Christ's own life which He has given us in the gospel. It's ours to live now - not as some qualification for heaven later.

So then, be holy! But define holiness Christianly - i.e. according to Christ.

Be holy! But let Christ's holiness thrust you outside the camp (Heb 13:12-13)

Be holy! But realise it's Christ's gift, once for all, not your continual achievement.

Be holy! But know that the point is to live Christ's life now, not to earn His blessing later.

Be holy! But don't be so carnal as to think it's the ladder to heaven.

Be holy! But make sure it's Spiritual holiness - the gift of Christ's Spirit to you - the very life of heaven to be enjoyed here and now on earth.

Be holy because Jesus your Lord is holy. And right now you're in Him.

8

Luther PreachingI've written previously about The Trendy Trifecta - Trinity, Grace and Idolatry. We love to preach them but it's so easy to speak of these topics anthropologically. We preach Trinity because it connects with our need for love. We preach grace because it gives us our motivation for the Christian life. We preach idolatry because it explains our psychological struggles with sin.  On reformation day, let me say a couple more things about that middle topic: grace. Here are four things it's important to affirm as we speak of grace:

Grace is not a substance.

Quite often among those who want to spotlight God's grace, it's spoken of in impersonal terms, as a concept, even as a liquid that Christians should be drunk on. Grace, Grace, Grace, they say. And I think "She sounds great but I think I'll stick with Father, Son and Spirit."

Remember the medieval church was all about "grace" too. But, again, it was more like a liquid, dispensed through the sacraments with the priests controlling the taps. Certainly we Protestants have done away with such intermediaries, but the chief error is the thought of grace as a substance.  Properly, grace is the Father's free gift of Jesus given by the Spirit. He's the One we proclaim, not "grace" in the abstract.

Grace is not, primarily, a motivation 

Again the medieval church was full of "grace" as a motivator. Infused grace filled you up and helped you live the Christian life. Ironically, there are many who say we need a reformation today (Amen, may it come) but they seem to champion "grace" chiefly in terms of its motivational qualities. Apparently Jesus, freely given to me, is mostly important because of the gratitude fuelled ethics that flow from His gift. And then it becomes very important to discern the motivations of my heart - whether they've originated by command or promise.

Well... motivation is important but that's not where the law/gospel distinction should be pressed. In the bible, God graciously saves me in Jesus and gives me the new life to live. So off I go - and yes, I work it out with blood, sweat and tears. And no, I don't for a minute think that such "effort" is opposed to grace. Because grace is not distinguished from law in terms of what goes on in my heart! That distinction happens far above my pay grade. Or at least, it ought to. Which leads us to...

Command does need to be distinguished from promise

The grace preachers are correct when they say that law and gospel must be distinguished. There is far too much co-mingling, leading to what Mike Horton calls GoLawspel preaching. The good news of Jesus gets mashed up with principles for holy living and the Christian is left without a promise to rest their hope on - only a string of conditionals they must fulfil. Many people who complain about the grace-preachers counter it with calls for balance.  This, to my mind, is a great mistake (for more, read The Monstrous Evil of Balance: Or Why Nuance is Always, Always Wrong). Gospel and law are not to be balanced. Faith and works aren't opposite ends of the spectrum that require a happy medium. We don't need the pendulum to swing back from 'too much grace' so that we add in some holiness to compensate. We are grace alone people and works come - MUST come - on the far side of a radical insistence on the blood of Christ alone.

Passive and active righteousness need to be sharply distinguished

Having distinguished law and gospel, here's the other vital distinction: Before God you can only receive righteousness in the gift of Christ Our Righteousness. Before the world, you are to pour yourself out for the family of God, for your neighbours, for the nations (this is the distinction between passive and active righteousness). We live by faith as regards God, by love as regards the world. Therefore calling the Christian to an active righteousness in their Christian walk is not anti-grace at all. Grace flows downhill into exactly that kind of life.

Therefore I don't need to be forever agonising over the motivation of the saints if I want them to stop sinning in this way or that. Absolutely I should set everything in the context of the gospel and when we rebuke each other it should be because "they are not walking in line with the truth of the gospel" (Gal 2:14). Yet Galatians 2 - itself a stunning proclamation of the gospel - speaks of opposing folks to their face because they are wrong. Paul commands Peter to stop and he's not particularly bothered about unearthing the depths of Peter's emotional commitments in the moment. Similarly, if I discover that my brother in Christ is cheating on his wife I will feel no qualms about taking drastic and forceful steps to try to end it. None of that is a betrayal of the true grace of God because telling folks to behave like Christians is totally what the grace of God produces. Of course you should be faithful to your wife - God has claimed you in Christ, you belong to Jesus, you are acting out of line with your true self, cut it out!

Commands are totally, totally awesome. It's just, they don't make you right with God. And you and I are quite prone to linking our active righteousness (with the world) to our passive righteousness (with God). So preachers should take care to distinguish the two. But having done that, commanding Christians to obey is not only permitted. It's necessitated by the fact that - by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone - we belong to God. Therefore, be generous, give sacrificially, love your spouse, practise hospitality, forgive your enemies. You're free now - free to live this life. So go do it.

But - someone might ask - won't the gospel itself produce these characteristics in us by the Spirit? Yes and no. Yes, in that those behaviours are the fruit of the gospel and our teaching about them must be organically tied to the gospel. But no in that you and I are flesh as well as Spirit. Therefore, let's allow the good law to shape (even to pummel) our fallen flesh, not because our identity with God depends on it (it doesn't), but because our graciously secured identity entails it.

To summarize

Let's love and proclaim the grace of God in Jesus. But let's make sure it's Jesus we're spotlighting, not a substance or motivational spur. Let's distinguish clearly between law and gospel, making sure to offer Jesus as the Gift He most clearly is. But let's not shy away from commands in the Christian life. In Jesus, God graciously gives us a new life, entirely apart from our works or worthiness. This life is secure with God, but wonderfully it is to be lived before the world. Thus commands regarding our active righteousness do not negate the gospel but flow naturally from it.

3

Outgoing GodWhat's this verse about?

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into His likeness with ever-increasing glory...  (2 Cor 3:18)

Is it about enjoying private devotional experiences with Jesus so that we become like Him?   That's a popular interpretation.  And it's half right.  But it's really not the full story.

The NIV footnote says that 'reflect' can be translated 'contemplate'.  But I think 'reflect' is a better translation.  It's a word that means 'showing like a mirror shows'.  The question is this - Is the mirror-like-ness telling us about how the beholder looks at the mirror?  Or is the mirror-like-ness telling us about how the mirror itself reflects outwardly?

My guess is the latter.  Our faces are like mirrors reflecting outwardly to the world the glory of Jesus.

This fits the context.  Paul has been reminding us about Moses's face-to-face encounters with the Lord (2 Cor 3:7,13).  He put a veil on to stop the Israelites seeing this fading glory.  But we (as v18 says) have unveiled faces.  And so what happens?   Others see the glory of Christ as we reflect it out to the world.

So this verse does indeed depend on our having devotional experiences with Jesus - just as Moses did (e.g. Exodus 33:7-11).  But that in itself will not transform us into Christ's likeness.  Reflecting Christ's glory out into the world - that will transform us.

Which is what the next two chapters of 2 Corinthians are all about.

Too often we think of holiness as one thing and mission as another.  Really they are mutually defining and mutually achieved.  Just as God's own being is a being in outreach, so our Christian character is a character in outreach.  To divorce the two is disastrous.

Holiness-in-mission is parallel to God's being-in-becoming. Just as God is who He is in His mission, so are we. Reflecting the Lord's glory is not a private activity - or at least it must not end there.  It's not essentially pietistic but proclamatory.  It's not about locking ourselves in a "prayer closet" - it's outgoing witness (to believers and unbelievers).

Slave-shackles-Does-the-Bible-condone-slavery"Forgive each other just as God, in Christ, forgave you." Ephesians 4:32

That's the flow - grace comes down to us for our sins and then it's meant to flow out to others for their sins.

If that's the pattern, what does it mean when we find another's sin "unforgiveable"? Well at that point we're accusing them of blasphemy. Why do I say that? Well that's what God calls the unforgiveable sin - blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In Mark 3:28-30 we learn that rejection of Christ as Saviour is the blasphemy - it is the unforgiveable sin (for more on that, see here.)

But that language is interesting. When God says we've done something unforgiveable (i.e. finally and forever rejected Christ), He calls it a blasphemy. My point here is this: when we deem the sins of others to be "unforgiveable" we are saying that they have blasphemed.  They haven't blasphemed the Spirit, they've blasphemed our god.

I'll explain it like this. We might well find ourselves in the position of knowing:

1) Christ has forgiven me,

2) Christ commands me to forgive, and that...

3) the offences against me are minor - not only relative to Christ's forgiveness but even when compared to other atrocities in the world.

But, it can still feel impossible to forgive. At that point we're deeming the offender to have committed an unforgiveable sin.  In other words the offender has blasphemed our real god (our "functional saviour" to use a Tim Kellerism).

I might find countless offences to be "water off a ducks back" but if someone ruins my reputation, or if they harm my career or if they in any way hurt my children - that's unforgiveable.  At those moments it's good to be aware that "unforgiveable" is synonymous with "sacrilegious."  And it's good to identify the real god who we think is being blasphemed.

When the idol of "my reputation" or "my career" or "my family" is uncovered, it's actually a huge step forwards in forgiveness.  Because now I'm confronted with the reality of my own need. I must repent and seek forgiveness.  She may have ruined my reputation.  But worshipped it.  When I confront the ugliness of my own blasphemy, my eyes are taken off the horizontal and fixed on the vertical. I realize I'm not so much "offended party" as "offender".  In the language of Matthew 18, I start to realize the vastness of the ten thousand talent debt.  And the 100 denarii becomes instantly relativized - not just in theory, but hopefully as a felt reality.

So here's my contention - maybe I'm wrong, correct me in the comments - but I reckon...

If there's something "unforgiveable" in my eyes, there's something blasphemous in my heart.

 

12

triploidembryoEmma and I have been going through a modified IVF process. On Friday the embryologist told us our cycle had failed. She emphasized (as many have throughout the process) that we had given ourselves poor odds of success by requesting that only 2 eggs be fertilised. We replied (as we've had to do many times) that we did not want to create life if there was any chance of having to discard it.

For us the bottom line is the incarnation. Jesus was, after all, conceived by the Holy Spirit - it's right there in the creed. The beginning of His life as man (and for man) was conception. Luke records it for us in chapter 1, verse 31 - and he ought to know, he was a doctor. Knowing this, we don't want to treat an embryo as anything less than "our little one." (In fact in this process we have tried not to say "embryo" or "zygote" or (shudder) "blastocyst" - blastocyst is an adjective, not a noun!)

So that has been our position. We only wanted 2 eggs fertilised because we would only be willing for Emma to carry two little lives. But as of Friday our cycle failed, or so the embryologist said. We put down the phone, devastated but also confused. These things always dawn on you later, but we couldn't help going over the embryologist's words. She mentioned that one of them had fertilised "abnormally" and was "unusable." But when we asked her whether it would survive in the womb she said: "We wouldn't transfer it." At the time we were reeling from the news, but it only took a minute to realise: she didn't exactly answer our question.

We went for one of the most aimless, rambling walks you could imagine and ended up on a park bench 100 yards from the clinic. A thought occurred: "Shall we go and ask for some clarification?"  We dragged ourselves over and asked a series of questions. We learnt that the child is triploidy - a fatal chromosome defect. If the child survives pregnancy it will most likely be still-born or survive only a few hours. We were told that no clinic in the world would transfer a triploid embryo. The more we learnt, the more fearful we were of pressing the issue. We almost didn't ask, but then we did: "Are you telling us that you won't transfer the embryo even if we ask you to?" At that point she relented, she'd make some calls.

When she got back to us later in the day she had phoned many people - the clinic's director, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, their legal team, the clinic's legal team. She was finally assured that transferring our sick child to its mother was "legal" - but only if we signed a lengthy disclaimer. (I am very grateful that our clinic strove to accommodate our strange views but I think both sides found the position of the other party a bit nuts.)

We agreed that we would allow our little one to grow to blastocyst stage and then - if all was well - transfer to Emma. This was a massive call for Emma especially - she would have to carry the child. Our thinking was, if the child was conceived in the womb, we wouldn't discard it now.

We thought briefly about the life-support argument too - i.e. when there's no hope and you're just prolonging the inevitable, sometimes you switch off life-support. That certainly has its place in certain circumstances but 1) every baby needs life support and 2) the artificial medical intervention is the test-tube, "letting nature take its course" is the womb! So yesterday morning we were staring down the barrel of a traumatic 12 months.

When the phone rang this morning, it could have been the invitation to come in for the transfer. Instead, our embryologist said that our little one had not made it. We had prayed that our Father would take the child home in His good time and we thank Him for His kindness.  That doesn't stop the grief.  Many times in the last two days we have wished that our baby was with us, even knowing the implications. But this is what the Lord has wanted, and we are starting to see His wisdom.

So here we are 5 days after the phone call on Friday and we're emotionally shattered. Was anything achieved by our awkward request? We still lost the child after all.

Here are seven things we've learnt or re-learnt over the past 5 days. Maybe this is part of what the Lord is teaching us...

1) The belief that life begins at conception ought to be a totally respectable position, even scientifically speaking.

The reason we had a sick child is because humans are meant to have a perfect complement of chromosomes from conception. The reason they were able to diagnose the problem from the day of conception is because our child did not have a perfect complement of chromosomes. The reason the clinic was so sure this spelt doom for the child is that, from the moment of conception, your genetic make-up does not change. In other words, the genome is set from day one. Even scientifically speaking you are on the strongest grounds if you insist that life begins at conception.

2) Jesus really does call us to the good life.

It would be easy to think that following Jesus backed us into a corner where we had to make the "tough decision." But it wasn't the decision that was tough, it was the situation. The situation has been: we have a terminally ill child. That's what is tough - horrendously so. But no decision of ours can alter the situation.

Many times over the last 5 days we have had to remind ourselves: "The tragedy has already struck." Nothing about our decisions can stop things being horrible. Once we embrace that reality then the only decision is to do the best by our sick child. At that point, the really tough decision would be to discard our baby!

Jesus does not call us to obedience for the sake of it. His way is the way because it's good - because He's good and He walks along it with us. Every other road is the hard road.

3) Needing Christ is where we're supposed to be.

When you are out of your depth, it puts you in touch with a spiritual reality we should feel all the time: we are weak, needy fools desperate for Jesus.

This sermon by Mike Milmine really helped us on Sunday night (download). To be human is to be empty - constantly requiring our sustenance from beyond ourselves. It's so easy to become self-sufficient, but when uncertainty and sorrow hit, we are forced to realise our true dependence on Christ. And He really is enough.

4) Church family is crucial.

There's no way we could have gone through this week without our brothers and sisters. Our friends have been more than friends - they have put themselves entirely at our disposal, prayed with us, comforted us and pledged ongoing help no matter what the road ahead. The body of Christ is an incredible reality. Without church, every way is empty and confusing and the way of Christ is impossible. With church, the way of Jesus draws us closer together and puts us in touch with real life.

5) Sometimes The Moral Stand is more of a mumbling query

When we first received the call on Friday we were pretty clueless. We basically went along with what they were saying. After the call, we went for a wander and, unbeknownst to us, the Lord was nudging us towards the clinic. We gradually encouraged each other to go in and ask questions. In a roundabout way, we eventually got to the point. We asked how they'd react if we insisted. And we went from there. This was not a bold unwavering line in the sand!

Friday morning was not our Luther-esque "Here I stand, I can do no other".  But then again - that's not how it worked for Luther either. When he was asked to recant, his first response was pretty uncertain too, only later did the resolve grow. Maybe that's how it happens though - a stammering small voice that God won't allow to fall silent. That's how it felt for me anyway.

6) "Our witness" looks crazy to the world.

We talk about being a witness in the world (it's kind of my job to encourage Christians to "be a witness"). It's easy to think of "our witness" in terms of being incredibly likeable and a Christian. But so often our witness comes by being incredibly odd.  To certain of our friends and family and to all of the staff at the fertility clinic we seem a bit crazy. And all of these people want our best. But because they want good things for us, they are bound to see our choices as stupid and wrong. But right there, the potential for true witness emerges. Only once we stand apart is it possible to see a different vision of reality. Only when our lives are inexplicable in worldly terms will our true motivations be seen. And we're beginning to see the positive fruit of that crazy-looking witness.

7) The Gospel is expressed in honouring the despised things.

1 Corinthians 1:27-29 sets out the gospel of the crucified Christ in all its counter-cultural oddness:

God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

The whole way of the cross is the way of honouring the despised - lifting up the poor from the ash-heap and seating them with princes. Yesterday our Father did something very, very gospel-shaped (what a shock!). He lifted up a despised, disabled little life and took it to Himself. He exalted someone the world would say "is not" - not truly a life, not healthy, not fit for use - and He has brought them right to His heart, to be with Christ forever. He says to the rejected one: "You are choice in my eyes! Let the whole world take note and let the wise be ashamed, I am the God of weaklings!"

That gospel witness is part of how Jesus makes this path the good path. He hasn't just called us to a difficult ethical decision. He has called us to His own way of life - the Good Life - the life of witness to the good news, the life of suffering to bring blessing, the life of honouring the weak, the life of exalting the overlooked, the life of sacrifice for others, the life of sharing with God's family, the life of fellowship in suffering and the life of hoping in the resurrection. At the end of the day, it's not 'a tough decision'. It's the only life that is really life.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer