Posts Tagged England issues
On November 10th 2011 I attended a lecture at Manchester Cathedral During this lecture John Parry made mention of gender-inclusive translations of the Bible and how he supports this idea.
This is not a new idea or a ‘new thing’ or exclusive to Mr Parry and his teachings, for many Christians today support new translations of the Bible which are re-worded to fit with gender-inclusive language.
However, for those who do not know what gender-inclusive language is within a Biblical translation context, it reveals itself as a modern scholarship idea created through the root of feminism and employed by some theologians and so-called Christians who seek to appeal to the modern world by arguing that God is neither male nor female?
I marvel that anyone can make this claim and believe in the God of the Bible. Yet, today there are a number of translations which have employed this use of language and no doubt many more will come. Concerning this issue, I see no need to move into a review or exploration of the many arguments which are used to support gender-inclusive language for Bible translations, for, it is an accepted Christian truth that the Bible is the Word of God, therefore, let us go to the Bible first and see if gender-inclusive language would translate the Bible correctly? Firstly, there is not a single passage in the Bible which claims that God is neither male nor female. If God were neither male nor female, He would therefore be sexless and the entire Bible and its revelation of God would be fundamentally different. He absolutely reveals Himself in scripture in a masculine context.
Genesis 1 contains the Biblical account of Gods creation of the universe and of the life of man and beast. Verse 27 of that chapter says this, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” (KJV)
The New King James version translates this text a little clearer and reads as follows: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them”. This text presents a clear case and absolute confirmation that the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve were not one and the same event. There were two events and not one single event and the text shows this.
The Biblical account claims that in the image of God, God created Adam and He created him male, thus God is male. The text makes this point very clear. That “in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them”. The text distinguishes the two points of the creation of Humans, that in the image of God, God created Adam first, that He created Him male, the text then adds that in the image of man God created woman. The text distinguishes this by saying that God created Adam first, the then moves to say, “male and female He created them”. The text is very clear on this. When the Bible says, “God created man in His own image” the Hebrew word employed in this passage is literally “Adam”. That is an important fundamental point to distinguish.
I would further argue that Genesis 2 acts as a kind of commentary or expounding of Genesis 1. I say this for a reason. Genesis 2: 7 reads as follows; “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Thus, the creation of Eve does not fit the context of this verse and was thus was not created out of the dust of the ground, but from Adams rib. Adam was created out of the dust of the earth, not Eve. Thus, she was not created first and therefore, not created in the image of God, but of Adam.
Paul affirms this in 1 Timothy 2: 12-13 in his argument against female teachers within the Body of Christ and what could be seen as Paul writing against feminism? Paul says thus; “I do not permit a woman to teach, or to have authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Paul continues with this theme and gives his reason from out of the scriptures; “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”
He then goes on to argue that “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2: 14) Paul is clearly writing within an ancient context and also warning future generations that the modern feminist movement is directly in line with what happened back in Eden, that because of woman, men are denying Gods word in favour of the deception of satan.
Further evidence that God created woman after Adam can be found in Genesis 2:18. The text reads as follows; “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make ‘him’ an help meet for ‘him”. This text confirms that the Genesis account is claiming that Adam was formed first.
Genesis 2:21-22 likewise reads; “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”
The Bible is very clear that God created Adam first and Eve was created from Adam, no one can rightly argue against the fact that the Bible makes this claim and if any so-called Christian chooses to ignore this or hate that fact that both I and the Bible do say this, then I fail to see why you would call yourself a Christian, since you clearly do not believe what the Bible says?
Now a person could argue that God does not have gender, yet this claim also would be very weak and not in line with the entire Biblical text. God has always revealed Himself male, this can be consistently seen in throughout the Old and New Testaments. God appeared to Abraham as a male (Genesis 18) He appeared to Moses in a masculine way (Exodus 3) He is consistently named in scripture as “He”. Search the scriptures for yourself and see if it is not so?
Likewise, I would also point out a very Christian fundamental truth. That truth would be found in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Himself, who was born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit and live as a man and died as a man. If God is neither male nor female, then how do we account for Mary’s conception?
How do we account for Christ being a man? Is He is not the very image of God? Was He not conceived in a masculine way? How then can anyone argue that God is not male?
The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, and I would plead with the church as did Paul when he warned us not to not be blown this way or that because of changing winds of doctrine, (Ephesians 4: 14).
I leave you once again with the text of Genesis 1: 27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” KJV
I ask every individual believer and Christian alike who reads this article, to look to Christ my brethren, bind yourself to Him and He will show you more clearly than I can, that He is who He is (Exodus 3: 14).
I would further add and plead with the Body of Christ that you must not deny the Word of God and forsake His testimony in favour of men and modern winds and an ever changing world. Be faithful to Him and His word and know His love and blessing which are given to those who love Him and keep His word (Exodus 20: 5-6) lest you make God angry and find yourself cast out of His garden and left to wonder through the world.
Throughout the year of 2011, we have seen many issues raising their heads in England. Many spending cuts have been made upon public services and public spending by Parliament and as a result of what many regard as outlandish spending cuts upon the poor, the general public is at a slow fuse, revolt is in the air and England is not at peace and people are worried.
Now, it is obvious that the spending cuts cannot be argued to blame for the riots of 2011, those riots had nothing to do with moral protest or standing up for what is right, but was criminal and nothing more. The problem is that I certainly feel that the riots and protests of 2011 has only been the start of many problems that England may have to face up to in the coming Years? I believe there will not only be protests as is common, but it is possible that there may be riots and revolt? I say this not only out of instinct and because of a theory of historic recurrence, but because anyone who looks and learns can read the signs of the times and it is clear that history is repeating itself. England has seen many revolts over her history, such as the 14th century peasant’s revolt which came forth from the poor people and common people of England, and was a product of what could be seen as the same issues as we face in England today. The common people are tired of crime, tired of parliament, tired of the condition of England, tired of being lied to by politicians and of unemployment and poll tax, the cost of food increases and poor wages. Wages decrease but the cost of food rises. The price of food goes up, rent, mortgages, tax, petrol, car tax, etc and very soon the pressures people face with day to day life will have to explode itself and when it does, it most likely explodes with little control. The problem with the world today is that life is fitted around a lifestyle and when that lifestyle cannot be met, life feels like it cannot go on. And when you consider that the problems England is facing is almost akin to the problems it has faced so long ago, we see that history is repeating itself and when history is forgotten as we see so many people do forget their own history, we know that it is they who are condemned to repeat it. And we don’t want to see a peasants revolt repeated again in the 21st century.
But the problem remains that there is a distinct feeling of anarchy in the air, public revolt and anger and this is cause for concern and action.
When I read comments people make around the internet and on blogs, YouTube, and networks, the anger that people have within them is evident by their words. Swearing is dominant, aggressive foul verbal attacks upon people and a distinct lack of expressing what is right and wrong and when one researches the root of swearing, research is clear that the root of foul language comes from an outburst of anger and wrath, inner anger, deep anger. Anger words cannot contain.
I think one of the main problems England has at the moment is not only the fact that that spending cuts must be made, but the problem is within the public areas in which the spending cuts are being directed. It is not good or right to be cruel and it is clear that Mr. Cameron is not being very fair in his conduct and targets with the spending cuts. You cannot give the public something and then take it from them. It only stirs up hatred.
Now, when I see the efforts and debates of parliament and the conclusions and actions of our Prime Minister David Cameron, it seems that he has little regard for the working class, the poor, and the common people of this realm?
The spending cuts of Manchester have demonstrated this, since the Tories did not win the election votes for Manchester. I often hear members of the public say to me that “it would be strange to think that Mr. Cameron did not consider the fact that Manchester was Labour when he made those cuts?”
It seems unjust that parliament leaders should be living in luxury, while many individuals, families and single parents from amongst the working class who have no employment and live in council houses and rented property cannot find work because all too many jobs have been cut by the government?
Christ fed the poor and helped the needy, and He was the King of Kings. Might the leaders of this so-called Christian country do well to imitate that example?
No doubt many would say they should “get a job”? But how can they become employed when they were raised in poverty and cannot get themselves out of it? I know the reality of this, since I was raised in an area which is regarded as the lowest area of England.
It does not quite feel right and England must change its ways and thoughts and act soon. The public have much power and the government must remember how much chaos those abominable and criminal riots caused this summer by only a small number of people, how much more if more people suddenly snapped and went into revolt?
I love England, her culture, her way of life, her heritage and history and I fear that she is losing her identity and way of life and the British people know and felt this.
Please consider these points and I say these things out of concern for the future, peace and well being of our beloved England.
In John Rylands Library, Manchester, houses the oldest fragment of the New Testament to date. During this present age of critical modern scholarship and its heavy critique of Biblical texts, we have a great testimony in direct contrast to many critical claims of modern textual scholars.
Many claim that the New Testament accounts were written much later than they actually were, and when I see this fragment as I do on a regular basis, its surviving words never cease to amaze me. They are a pure testimony to the reality of the absolute identity of Jesus Christ, son of God, who was and is, and is to come, “The Truth”. Not ‘a’ truth, but ‘The’ Truth.
The Greek fragment, of John 18: 31-33, on the recto reads as follows, ,
“the Jews, “For us it is not permitted to kill
anyone,” so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he
spoke signifying what kind of death he was going to
to die. Entered therefore again into the Praeto-
rium Pilate and summoned Jesus
and he said to him, “Thou art king of the
The Greek fragment of John 18: 37-38, on the verso reads as follows,
“a King I am. For this I have been born
and (for this) I have come into the world so that I would
testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth
hears of me my voice.” Said to him
Pilate, “What is truth?” and this
having said, again he went out unto the Jews
and said to them, “I find not one
fault in him.”
Is it not amazing that the oldest fragment in the world of the New Testament, dated possibly earlier than 100 AD and no later than 150 AD, speaks of such a great testimony to the word of God? Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 24: 35.
This is certainly true. Glory to the Lamb of God.
“If God promise riches, the way thereto is poverty. Whom he loveth, him he chasteneth: whom he exalteth, he casteth, down: whom he saveth, he damneth first. He bringeth no man to heaven, except he send him to hell first. If he promise life, he slayeth first: when he buildeth, he casteth all down first. He is no patcher; he cannot build on another mans foundation.”
William Tyndale here presents an absolute Biblical truth that the gospel in this life when lived to the full leads to poverty and not wealth and prosperity. The reason why Tyndale spoke this truth and saw it clearly, is that he was not blinded by prosperity and culture.
As an Onlooker from England, it is immediately clear that one of the major problems we face today within Western Christianity and our more popular ministering brothers from across the Atlantic could well be one of cultural loyalty and being caught up with the implications a Biblical text or doctrine may imply. Often when talking to an fellow American brothers be they preachers or Theologians, it appears that they are more concerned with the implications of a doctrine rather than absolute loyalty to the text itself. Much of this issue appears to be due to over emphasis upon Calvinism or so-called ‘Calvinism’ being part of the foundations of ‘American History’. Such is not wrong in itself, for England herself has a massive Christian history and the Protestant reformation began in England and resulted in the publication of the King James Bible in 1611. Thus, one problem of today would be due to the memory of likes of Edwards, Whitefield and loyalty to ancestral heritage, the Biblical narrative is seen largely through these perspectives. Rather than being faithful to the Biblical text, our American brothers could get caught up in this cultural issue and its implications, and before one can even attempt to be loyal to the text, the presentation is viewed upon its implications rather than its loyalty to the Biblical narrative. Even larger than this is the influence that our American preachers and theologians have upon English ministers and the rest of the world, which if true to scripture would not be a problem, but many often fail to recognise this cultural issue which all too often stands in the way of absolute loyalty to the Biblical narrative. And due to the pursuasive words of the author, be they past or present and his convicing words that pursuade the reader that he is being loyal to the actual text, is not always loyal at all, but is more loyal to his culture and not the Biblical narraitve. This is why the many of the more profound Biblical Theologians in history have come out of England, one because English is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world and two because English people are, by nature not blinded by prosperity and culture but are open to explore varied opinion and cultures, even if it differs from what we believe.
Poverty and suffering for the gospel is likewise viewed through what culture dictates suffering to be and not what the Biblical text actually says that suffering is. But English Biblical theologians have a reputation for not being over influenced by English culture, but rather desire change culture to conform to the Biblical text and to find the Biblical setting and let that Biblical culture demonstrate what the Biblical narrative actually says. History has proven this by the fact that many English reformers and theologians have gone against their country when the country has gone against the Bible. That poverty must be viewed from a Biblical perspective and not a cultural perspective. That ministry must be viewed from a Biblical perspective and not a cultural perspective.
Now you may ask, well, why are you relating this to America Simon? when all of Western Christianity is near enough corrupt? Well, the answer is that much of the corruption that Christianity has embraced has come from American theologians and the proserity movement to boot, just as the corrupted modern critical scholarship movement came from Germany and has spread throughout scholarship. American multi-miliion dollar instrustrious ministers and their hidden prosperity gospel manifests itself on radio and tv networks and this ministry influences, yet many do not research the background theology behind each preacher.
Thus, as current affairs and history shows, England is very open to America and her people, and we love her, but from a Christian perspective and based upon spiritual loyalty to the Biblical Narrative, the problem happens when our fellow American ministers may all too often fail to acknowledge their Christian influence upon people in other parts of the world who do not see things as they see them, yet they all too often ignore the fact that their influence spreads around the world and their works are read, yet in reality, what are they spreading, is it Biblical truth or culture?
Simon Peter Sutherland
The importance of Theology is and has always been needed within the walls of the Christian life. If we sit outside the walls or on the walls we do very little but watch the sun go down and the sunrise. In other words it’s like sitting on the fence, or guiding sheep into a field where there is no grass. They don’t eat and the work does not get done. We and they, are wasting time and energy. Now suppose we do not sit on the fence or outside the walls but rather stand within the walls and not only take in the scenic views, but internalise them and embrace them, as one would do when he or she returns or marries the love of his or her life. We kiss, we hold each other, we embrace. We become one.
Now if we do not make the first move we will never know what lay before us or what we could have had or known if only we would make the move and ask the question, just as a nervous teenager asks a girl for a date. If he never asked, he would never know and that plaque would haunt him for the rest of his life. Now suppose he asked the girl, ‘would you like to come out with me for a date sometime?’ and she replied, ‘Sure, I’d love to’. Would he not be the better for it than if he had never taken the step to ask the question? Of course he would and the same can be said of understanding ‘Biblical Theology’. Asking questions is vital, but more than that, we need to listen to the answer or answers and take them on board. Remember the movie, ‘It’s a wonderful life’ where James Stewart and Donna Reed are challenged by an elderly guy sat on his porch, and he says, ‘Why don’t you just kiss her instead of talking her to death’. James Stewart could talk the ears of a wooden Indian and yet despite his true feelings, he hesitated to act upon them. But little did he know that in time he would marry the girl and raise a family. Thus we do not always know where we are going when we follow impulses but destiny and providence is working its hand in all our lives. There was a time when I was compelled to purchase books, yet all the time a war was going on within me to reject the books and buy something else rather than a book that inspires thought towards the truth of God. The human will would have you follow the world and feel the impulse of the human will, ‘go sin some more’, whereas Christ would say, “Go and sin no more”. Thus the war is underway in the search to find a Theology that can find us and place us where God would have us be. This Theology is the means appointed to us for eternal life. We need it, we should love it, and we should always apply it to every moment of life. But there are times when we don’t. We are men and women and we fail. But that does not mean that we cannot and should not continue to try. We should look at our human nature and say, ‘Wait a minute…if I don’t drink coffee for two weeks, I won’t have the desire to drink anywhere near what I did before’. Thus the nature of the will can be lessened by the practice of a Theology that is both vital and important for everyday living. Not a Theology that can often lead nowhere, but a Theology that can hold us, sustain us, keep us, watch over us, comfort us, bind us and keep us so near to Christ that we can hardly stand a brief minute being away from it. Its something that is practised and enjoyed. Like a Theology of the attributes of God. Who is He? What is He like? What does He talk like or what does He like? What offends Him and do I offend Him knowingly or unknowingly? And if so what can I do about it? This is what I would love to hear belted out from the heart and the mouth of every preacher in every nation. Truth, a Theology of Truth. A Theology that sustains and sticks to every word of the Bible like glue and does not ignore a single text that either contradicts or compliments a single Theology or a single creed. I’m talking about holding on to the word of God in every corner and every last syllable and every last text that our eyes and hearts embrace. Not ignoring a text or pulling out the old context or Greek interpretation ploy whenever its convenient. But asking God and ourselves, ‘What does this truly mean? Have I erred?’ If only humans would truly say to themselves, ‘I don’t care if I contradict a creed or a leader by not swaying from a single text of the Bible’. Or as Luther said, ‘My conscience is captive to the Word of God, and to go against conscience is neither right nor safe’. Thus, a Theology that is put into practice before God, ourselves and man, is far greater than a theology put down on paper or belched out from the pulpit but not lived. There’s only one thing to do with such theoretic blasts of wind and that is to strike a match and burn the stench.
God gives warnings to His people, ‘get it right’ and we only have this life to do it in and then comes the judgement. Not judgement for indwelling sin, but being neither cold or hot. God would have us be one or the other. Same to can be said of our Theologies, are they cold or are they hot. I don’t know about you but I prefer the hot days rather than the freezing cold ones. I’d rather be in the blazing heat than in the dusty old cold cellar where there is little light or beauty. The beauty is in the light of the sun and the light magnifies the beauty of all things good. Thus when we open the pages of the Bible, what good would it be to open them in the dark and attempt to read it? Why not call out for a light as the jailer in Acts 16: 25-31 and fall to our knees and believe? That’s what Salvation is all about, believing and asking “What must I do?” (Acts 16: 30) It’s not a salvation that requires a man or women to sit and simply read or do nothing, it’s a salvation that at first requires belief and second beliefs to good works. Just as the Phipippian jailer believed and then washed the stripes of Paul and Silas and after the event of his baptism continued in good works and made Paul and Silas a meal (Acts 16: 33-34). In other words the Theology I am speaking of is a Theology that is put into practice and one that says, ‘Let’s talk about it over dinner’ and more than that, ‘I will cook the food for you’.
In other words Paul never spoke of a faith that is idle or so stable that it can hardly move. No it’s a faith that is so strong and active that there is little room for inactivity. Paul’s Theology was like a lion, it works best when you turn it loose. It’s not something that can be caged or contained within the limitation of words, books and preaching. It’s something that requires a person to get up off their backsides and do something about. It’s not a Theology that once learned stays behind closed doors or stained glass windows. It something life changing, threatening to authorities and governments, leaders and control freaks. It’s something that once turned loose, can cause a whole City to turn into uproar. This is what we have read about in the journals of Wesley, and the Foxes book of Martyrs. It’s a total uproar, a Theology that once learned must be practised and lived to the point of death. It is something so strong, so powerful, so addictive, so un-measurable that once tasted can never be erased from the taste-buds of our hearts and minds. It captivates people, arrests them and throws them into the prison and binds them in the chains and stocks of Christ. We must hear the word of God, believe all that is written and be astonished at the doctrine of The Lord.
A PROBLEM OF RELIGION, NO JOY
Many people dislike “religion” and view “religious people” as often miserable and tense, extreme and strange. Of course this is not always the case for many people admire others who have faith in something because they often fail to have any true faith themselves. Many find in their own characters and conduct a sustaining faith that influences their own selves, many say to me, “I believe in myself” and “I cannot believe in a God that I cannot see”. And although I can understand and identify with such people, it must be pointed out that such is not the case with “true religion”. One common view is that many people blame the many world religions as the one of the many problems that often provokes world wars? And although there is some if not a very lot of truth in that fact, I must state that true religion is not the cause of world wars. It is the power trips of certain evil dictators that cause war, it is not true religion. There would have been no wars in the Bible times if evil did not wage war upon goodness, therefore we cannot be blinded to true religion because of war. True religion is not a mystical faith that is nothing more than a leap in the dark, and a voyage to nowhere. “True religion” is true faith and true faith is an eye opener and a joy to behold. True faith is not a leap in the dark but is a leap from the dark into the light. It opens our eyes to who we are and who God really is. The problem we face with “religion” today is the many self appointed religious leaders who attempt to lead men to themselves or to God as though they are a necessary channel or mediator to the heavens. We see this with men like the Pope who are presented to the public as messianic type figures who claim to have the authority to anathematise people or bless them. False religions promote a threat that unless you join the certain church you are going to end up in hell. But true religion does not attempt to ensnare the individual into becoming a member of “the denomination church” but invites them to be reconciled unto God and to be at peace with Him through Christ. Religions such as Islam and Roman Catholicism all teach that unless you join the certain denominational church you cannot enter heaven. While on the other extreme some Religions claim that everyone will go to heaven with or without Christ or God. Yet Jesus did not teach this. On the contrary He said, “accept a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” John 3: 3. And no where does the Bible state that a man can only be born again when he or she is part of the denominational Christian Church. Christ said, “come to me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” Matthew 11: 28. “The truth shall make you free” John 8: 32. You see that Christ pointed people to Himself and not the denominational Church, and offered peace and rest for the individual in Him and not dismal church sacraments and dull services. While on the other hand Christ stated that without Him, there can be no hope of salvation for anyone. Christ did not say, “Come to the church” or “Come and receive the sacraments at your local church and inherit heaven through the church”. On the contrary, if one is truly saved and born of God, he or she will want to join other people of like mind and be blessed and built up by their company. That is what the Bible says is the true church. Thus, the distracting claims that religion promotes often clouds the eyes of many people and the actions of the church distract people from the personal conduct and salvation freely offered to the individual.
All such religions as Roman Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and many branches of so-called Christianity including the Church of England, Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses all have one thing in common. They all promote the individual religious and sacramental workings of a man as a necessity of inheriting eternal life with God. But the problem is that true religion should promote the fact that God Himself came down to earth in order to reach man and reason with him concerning righteousness and heaven. God Himself came down onto earth and reasoned with Abraham, (Genesis 18: 16-33) God Himself came down onto mount Sinai and gave Moses the tablets containing Ten Commandments (Exodus 19-20: 17). God came down to earth and said “Come now, and let us reason together” Isaiah 1: 18. God Himself came down to earth in the form of Christ and offered mankind the opportunity to reason with Himself and receive the free and unconditional gift of salvation. All man had to do was receive the gift and believe that God has made a way for him to inherit a gift that he was unable to achieve by human efforts. All those who believe in Jesus are saved to good works not by good works. This for me demonstrates that real God given Christianity is the true religion and the most powerful. For all other religions teach a certain way for man to find the truth and not the truth finding him. Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life” (John 14: 6). But Mohamed came along over 500 years after Jesus and based all his ideas upon what was already written by Moses centuries earlier. He could not say that he was the truth and neither could Buddha’s The sayings of Buddha for such writings only attempt to point people to human wisdom being nothing more than a form of the truth taught by Solomon in the book of Proverbs and Moses many years previous.
It has to be said that the problem we face today with our current religious and none religious generation is that there is no healthy fear of God and no healthy fear of authority, for religion has blinded many peoples eyes to the truth. In my opinion much responsibility for this is to be blamed upon the theory of evolution as a presentation and enticement that creation account recorded in Genesis is just a myth and evolution is factual religion. But such evolutionists fail to inform their hearers that the scientific world is 50-50 regarding the creation account and the Darwinian theory.
If only man would embrace the God given gift of eternal salvation and eternal freedom and wash away the clouds that religion blows in front of their eyes he would hear and know that what the Bible states is the truth of all hope and pleasure in the glory and beauty of almighty God. Therefore the problem of religion is that it blinds peoples eyes and blocks the ears to the actual text of the Bible beyond disputes concerning, the creation account or the Lords prayer or the virgin birth. Religion never finds the treasure because it never looks up from the map. If only the public of today would know that true religion is a joy to hold, it is an honour and a delight to embrace. It is filled with the spiritual truths, joy, pleasure and insights and unimaginable truths. But religion without joy is like a spare tyre with no jack and a spare tyre without a jack is like a Church without Jesus.
“Blessed is the man that walks not in the council of the ungodly, nor delights in the seat of mockers, nor sits in the seat of the scornful, but his delight is in the law of the Lord and in His law he meditates day and night” Psalm 1: 1-2
John Wycliffe or Wycliffe was born in Yorkshire, England possibly in 1324, though some say 1330? It is believed that he was born in the town called, ‘Wycliffe’ as indicated in his name, though others claim he was born in ‘Hipswell’ about ten miles from ‘Wycliffe’ and others a town called ‘Spressell’? Although each propagated town is in the area of Yorkshire, the most consistent and accepted location for Wycliffe’s birth is ‘Hipswell’. The next most likely location is the town of Wycliffe. Today the town of Wycliffe is known as ‘Wycliffe-on-Tees’ in County Durham and in the town there is St Mary’s Church where Wycliffe was said to have been baptised as an infant? Likewise, at ‘Hipswell’ in North riding, Yorkshire, there is the church of St John, the Evangelist where in the original building that once stood, it is presumed that Wycliffe worshipped?
It is believed that John Wycliffe would have originally been named, ‘John de Wycliffe’ or ‘John of Wycliffe’. His early life, of which little is known, was part of an important period of English ecclesiastical history. We know that John was born into a respectable family, who owned considerable amounts of property who were clearly religious people, as most were back in those days. Roman Catholicism was a dominant force in religion and infant baptism its catholic tradition. Some claim that the Wycliffe family manor-house stood not far from the church where the infant John was probably sprinkled?
His childhood home would have been surrounded by the great beauty of the Yorkshire landscape, rugged hills and soft valleys. Such visual beauty offers clearness and peace and often gives rise to great thought and understanding. In such mountainous wilderness a person often has time to sit and to think and a young country boy may even develope a character reflective of the Lords creation or should I say, the Lord puts him there because his character reflects the mountains.
In 14th century England, most people were religious, and Christian church life was a huge part of family tradition. Families would attend Sunday services and very few questioned this practice or any other practice of the Church. But England was changing, voices began to rise. Catholicism was the dominant force of religion and the church ruled, the priests governed by their own authority and Scripture was second place to church tradition and the Bible was written in Latin, the language of ancient Rome, and only those who could read Latin could read the scriptures, if they could afford to own a copy?
It is said that at some period of his early life he left his home town too pursue an academic life at Oxford University, which was then the leading University in Western Europe.
Wycliffe is knowm to have become Master of theology and worked and lectured at Balaiol College, which is now on Broad Street in Oxford. Wycliffe lectured and debated on a number of topics with his students. He was a Philosopher, Theologian and one of the most brilliant minds and men of God England has known, filled with the Holy Spirit and a gentleman, full of charity and dedicated to the needs of the poor. But he was not passive when it came to matters of Biblical truth and he had a sharp tongue. Rightly so, for a theologian will not fight, but he has a pen and his words are his weapon. Such was the case with John Wycliff and although he was a gentle man and a gentleman, he was not without sharpness in his words, maybe that is why I edentify with him? Wycliffe can often be found in sparp contrasting disagreement with the authorities for his use of cutting words, yet I guess it would be hard for any spirit filled man to not display cutting words with men who abuse the scriptures for their own financial and earthly domains. But it was through the Holy Spirit of God and His word which Wycliffe’s brilliance was to be so clearly displayed. No surprise then that he became known as “The Gospel Doctor”.
Wycliffe read the scriptures for the first time in Latin, he was not expert in Hebrew or Greek, nor did he read them but rather he studied the scriptures in the Latin as translated by Jerome, in the 4th century. In Jerome’s Vulgate, Wycliffe saw the clear testimony of divine scripture, and the word of God set him in direct conflict with the established church that then ruled. Wycliffe did not see popery in the scriptures and so denied the authority of the Pope, the literal interpretation of Transubstantiation and he believed in sharp contrast to the church that the common man should be able to read the word of God in their own language. Wycliffe pointed out that the majority of the New Testament was written in Coine Greek, which was the common language of the people and Jerome translated the Coine Greek into Latin, the common language of ancient Rome. Wycliffe then asked, ‘why should the Scriptures then not be in the language of the common man?’ But, the problem was that the Roman church which then ruled the church in England had elevated the Latin Vulgate so much so that they deemed it anathema to even think of having a Bible in the common English tongue. We see this type of translation issue today in the King James only movement, where an Old English Bible is regarded above all over translations, even arguably at times held above the Hebrew and Greek? And those who translated the scriptures from an original source, are regarded as heretical by those who hold exclusively to the King James Bible. Surely this is not what Wycliffe had in mind, since Wycliffe did not embrace the idea of the church and state intermingled as it was with the King James Bible by order of the King. However, William Tyndale who followed on from the work Wycliffe left behind, clearly desired such action to come about and not only does his book, ‘The obedience of the Christian man’ communicate this, but his final prayer as he was about to be strangled and burned at the stake reveals it too, in his own words, “Lord, open the eyes of the King of England”.
WRITINGS AND BELIEFS
John Wycliffe is probably best known for his association with the title ‘the morning star of the Reformation’ and with the first English New Testament so-called named after him. But such is justifiably debatable as to if Wycliffe ever sought reformation? One major problem can be found in the many misunderstandings of Wycliffe’s beliefs by Protestants. Many do not read him, yet they claim to know what Wycliffe taught and believed? But in today’s world, many of his writings are rarely seen and therefore the many things which he believed are not always explored as they should be? The writings of Tyndale are more popular, but even Tyndale’s writings are lesser known than lets say the writings of Luther or Calvin. These days so many new books are written and published, yet all too many old books lay unpublished and such great contents are sadly neglected. But, if one were to read Wycliffe’s actual writings, one could argue whether or not Wycliffe was an actual reformer like the modern reformers today? One could doubt that Wycliffe believed in ‘Justification by Faith’ alone? One could argue that he believed in purgatory? Yet the question is: What did he believe? Well, lets look and let the facts speak for themselves.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
Few can doubt that Wycliffe held the Bible in the most highest esteem? His love of the scriptures found him in trouble and direct collision with the authorities through much of his life. He regarded the Word of as the Word of Christ and Christ is above all people, therefore the Bible is above all books. Wycliffe saw much corruption in the church and abuse of the scriptures and his studies of them caused him to depart from the church which had long since departed from the Truth. Tradition had taken over and can when tradition takes over from the scriptures, then the church becomes unBiblical.
After many years of study of the Bible, Wycliffe found that the common people were being spiritually destroyed through lack of knowledge of the scriptures. Few questioned the authority of the church and dared not question it. Wycliffe knew that it was Gods will that everyman and woman and child born of woman should have the word of God and in his/her own tongue and that all people should freely read it, no one excluded. So rather than merely debate this or wait for others to rise up, he sought to translated the scriptures from out the latin which they were then held the most highly and into English, in the common tongue. If the people could have the word of God in their own language, then they would see how far the church’s doctrine had moved away from the Truth.
But did he actually attain this holy desire or see his dream come true? Well, that is a subject of much debate for although the Wycliffe New Testament was long believed to have been translated by Wycliffe himself, more recent modern scholarship argues that the translation itself was not the work of Wycliffe but of his followers, known as ‘the Lollards’. The claim goes that the Lollards translated the text in memory to Wycliffe who inspired the move. But is this scholarly claim absolute truth or is it merely theoretical? Did Wycliff translate some of the New Testament but not all of it? Well, let us look, for there are a few clues which could contrast this claim.
In 2010 I visited ‘Ludgershall’ in Buckinghamshire, the first parish at which Wycliffe was minister for a period of years and during my visit to ‘Ludgershall’ I learned that the ancient church building once held a room above the nave in which it is said that Wycliffe worked on his translation of the scriptures from Latin into English. Many could doubt this claim, but pure reasoning and logic would re-enforce it. For, the claim must have truth, because Wycliffe being a minister of common people who did not speak Latin must have translated the scriptures from the Latin into the common tongue as part of his weekly sermon. He preached week after week for a period of 6 years in that church, it is not likely that he read the scriptures in Latin and explored them in exposition in English? And if he did, which we certainly know he did, then would he not have preached from the whole of the New Testament? Thus, these are two fairly good reasons to believe that Wycliffe did actually translate the Wycliffe New Testament, if not all, then certainly a great amount of it.
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ‘ALONE’
Many deny that Wycliffe believed the doctrine of Justification by faith, since he stated much necessity upon good works. But I do not believe that such claims are true. Wycliffe was not a Pelagian or denominational in any way. The problem with works and salvation is that people miss-understand or wrongly and claim that the good works spoken of in the scriptures are the works of the church, not the works of faith. Likewise it is also inaccurate to deny good works and also questionable to regard works as part of an ongoing Justification, for Justification is a once and for all act in the New Testament, but an ongoing perfection is far more accurate. For in actual fact, a good strong and Biblicaly healthy balance between faith and good works can be found throughout the Scriptures. Faith brings good works and are thus the works of faith and therefore come from faith and not merely from ourselves but from obedience and deeds of obedience, they are a product of faith and not the cause of faith. Now I know that many deny works of obedience in today’s church, but such ideas are inconsistent with scripture. The Epistle of James is evidence of that, from which James could be seen so evidently in contrast to the many understandings of Justification by faith, that people re-interpret the text, because they fail to understand it correctly. Such as the case where Luther had no time for the epistle and when he translated it into German in 1520, he altered the text to make it fit with the theology. Wycliffe did not do this, but rather understood the doctrine correctly, that real faith brings forth good works, there is little else a real Christian can do but serve God not only in worship and praise but and in good deeds. As James wrote, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” James 2: 14. (KJV) Likewise in verse 17 of James, the Geneva Bible translation also says, “Faith, if it have no works is dead in itself”. Thus, a good healthy understanding of the sovereignty of God in salvation is not a contradiction to human responsibility and good works. God rewards the obedience of the Christian man in good works and even enables Christians to do them through obedience to the Holy Spirit, and if His people obey, then great will be our rewards in heaven.
An old review of Wycliffe’s understanding of Justification by faith reads like this, Quote: “Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, and that without faith it is impossible to please God; that the merit of Christ is able, by itself, to redeem all mankind from hell, and that this sufficiency is to be understood without any other cause concurring.” (The Writings of the Reverend and learned John Wycliff, D.D. The religious tract society, London. 1847. Page 41.)
Thus, I see no errors in Wycliffe’s understanding that Justification by faith brings for good works and this quote from Wycliffe makes it clear. Quote: “Trust wholly in Christ, rely altogether on His suffering, beware of seeking to be justified in any other way than by His righteousness. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation”.
Many believe that Wycliffe believed in purgatory, and we can be fairly certain that he did, at least at one point in his life. We must remember that Purgatory was an established teaching of the church and a belief that many took for granted. However, Wycliffe did not believe in purgatory when he read and studied the New Testament. Yet the belief remained in a sense, but he more understood purgatory as a place where believers go for a time before they enter heaven, where they rest and sleep. I do not believe this doctrine at this time, but for me it is not a fundamental enough doctrine for me to reject Wycliffe. However, I do not deny that there is evidence for this belief in the scriptures, but just because I personally do not believe the doctrine because of my understanding of Luke 23: 43, it does not mean I am correct, I could be wrong?
JOHN WYCLIFFE AT LUDGERSHALL
Not much is known about the private life of John Wycliffe because little of it is recorded. However, we know certain facts about his ministry, for example we know that Wycliffe was minister of Ludgershall from 1368-1374. A quiet little parish in the country where Wycliffe was able to continue his work and since Oxford was not far away, he could continue his accademic work at Oxford also. Of the whereabouts of his home in Ludgershall, I know nothing. He may have lived and worked from a room in the church building, but it is most likely that he had a vicarage somewhere in the parish?
During my time at Ludgershall it became hard to figure out what the parish was like in the time of Wycliffe, but if as it stands today is anything to go on, it is a very quiet town with one pub and a few scattered houses. The church at Ludgershall has much that dates back to the time of Wycliffe and is set in a very peaceful area amongst green trees and beautiful countryside. I was greatly blessed to sit and read the Wycliffe New Testament in this church and area, it was quite something.
In England, a town or city can either change almost beyond recognition due to over development, or it can remain with little unchanged. It is hard for me to imagine Ludgershall today being very different to the Ludgershall of the past? It has a simplicity written over it and when looked upon in the context of John Wycliffe and his time, it has a pureness and honesty. When standing in the church one can imagine Wycliffe in the pulpit preaching from the Bible in the common English tongue and his words can be imagined as echoing throughout the whole building and into the ears and hearts of his listeners. A wonderful gospel of Biblical accuracy and honesty, and passionate discovery which sets the soul free from denominational loyalty through passionate love with the pure milk and meat of scripture. Today however, the parish at Ludgershall has departed from much truth and has embraced feminist theology, but since Wycliffe’s memory is strongly held on display at Ludgershall, one has a hope that Biblical truth can still return. If truth could flower in the hearts of the people while Roman Catholicism was dominant in Wycliffe’s day, then truth can flower once again in our day. That is the hope that Wycliffe’s memory inspires. That God may reform his church once again?
In 1368 Wycliffe applied for an absence of leave for two years from the Parish at Ludgershall and this leave being permitted, he continued his studies at Oxford for a further two years. Wycliffe soon lost favour with men because the scriptures were regarded as a book of secondary importance and not of the most absolute and highest importance for rule of life and for doctrine.
Wycliffe had a strong devoutness to the work of evangelism and the free proclamation of the gospel, with or without the support of officials and the state. I touched on this understanding a little earlier and although many could argue against Wycliffe’s understanding of church and state, the argument works both ways. Christ certainly was rejected by the state as were the apostles and Paul too. The idea of the church and state working together could imply a kingdom upon this earth, but Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight” (John 18: 36). Wycliffe seemed to realise this more than most I think? That in Biblical reality and in contrast to tradition, the whole New Testament concept had radically moved away from the state, in contrast to the Law of Moses, which was the state of its day. This claim differs from the later reformers who regarded and still do regard Wycliffe as the so called ‘Morning Star of the reformation’. One could doubt that he was the morning star of much of the reformation, but not all. Tyndale certainly worked outside the law but desired the law to come to a knowledge of the truth, as did Luther, who worked outside the law and both leading figures became outlaws. This contrasts the later reformers who had an objective to see the state church and the protestant movement work together. Today we see this mix of reformed theology and state in America where many popular ministers may well be more politically Biblical, than they are Biblically, Biblical? Wycliffe relied on bold preaching to conduct the affairs of the gospel. So it is likely that his time at Lutterworth was spent in spreading the gospel amongst the people of Lutterworth, to travellers and passers by and those who attended the services. I doubt very much that a man who had spent so much time in learning at Oxford and a master of theology, would lock himself away in his study and rely upon bringing people into the church to hear the gospel and not taking to church to the people. All too many modern ministers of our day, especially reformers, lock themselves away from the people and step out from their studies and libraries to walk through a glass tunnel which leads them directly to their pulpit. I don’t believe this is right, or Biblical, for although I recognise that a minister should not leave the word of God to serve tables, as Acts 6: 2 appears to claim, we must remember that these twelve apostles who said, “It is not reasonable that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables” also went out into the whole world “to preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16: 15) Paul told Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Timothy 4: 5) And this ministry of evangelism is not pulpit based, but being out there in the community with all people, so a word to all minister, if you don’t evangelise out in the world, then you need to wake up.
So for a minister to ignore evangelism, is not absolutely in line with what the Bible states, or what Wycliffe saw in the text. All too many ministers desperately need to be more amongst the people, sitting with the down and outs, the prostitutes, the robbers, weeping with the victims, grieving with the those who have loved and lost, the sick and the lame, visiting prisons. But of course we all see different things in our experiences of life and church, but any minister who has no regular contact outside of his established building with his so-called flock, is not doing what the Bible says a minister should do, so let me say, it is not Lollard and its certainly not Biblical or Christlike.
What stands out to me about Wycliffe is his absolute passion to see the gospel among the people, without the need of commentaries or interpreters. Both Wycliffe and Tyndale believed the Holy Spirit will guide the believer into all truth and it is our duty to take the gospel to them, that they might receive it freely. It is likely that since Wycliffe desired to see the gospel rightly into the hands of the common people, that he took the gospel to them and did not rely on the people coming to him. All too many churches today think they are doing evangelism when they promote church outreach services, ministers, and their local gathering. Such could not be further from the truth. We are to take the pure milk of the gospel out to the people, that they may embrace Jesus and grow in His truth. Church life comes after conversion, and not before. Lutterworth reflects this aspect of evangelism, not merely in its modern setting, but in its ancient rurality of farmland and peasents, of whom Wycliffe did plead on their behalf that church might look to the needs of poor and not the wealthy needs of the clergy. It is often the case, even more so today, that the cleargy or the big time preachers, are wealthy off the gospel, while the common man struggles to survive his low pay, yet all too often he hears of the importance of tithing and buying books. Books which have high prices on them, and a 10% offering, which many poor families cannot afford. Strange is it not how Wycliffe’s writings and works cost him and not the other way around. The gospel was given to the people for free and at no charge, unlike the many organisations and ministries of todays church.
In 2010 I visited the market town of Lutterworth, which is most ascociated with Wycliffe and in Lutterworth can be found the actual church where Wycliffe was minister for the 2nd time, starting in 1374 or 1375 and ending on 31st December 1384, on the day of Wycliffe’s death.
The Foxe’s Book of Martyrs tells of how Wycliffe suffered a third stroke during a service while ministering the Lords supper to his his flock. He was carried out the side door on a chair and taken to the rectory where he died two days later. His body was buried in Lutterworth beside the church, and there is his remains lay until 30 years later when his decayed bones were exumed and burned by the Roman Catholic church. It is most likely that the authorities were attempting to either put fear into those who may follow his beliefs, like that of Jon Huss, whom they burned at the steal or they were attempting to erase Wycliffe’s memory from future generations. But his memory was never erased. And today, Wycliffe’s ambition is firmly in place and the Bible has been translated into the common tongue, more than I care to imagine. A practice which traces back to the life of John Wycliffe.
The chair which Wycliffe was carried out on can be seen to this day in Lutterworth, as can the pulpit from which Wycliffe preached. Though altered over the years, the pulpit can be found in part within use at the parish church in Lutterworth, of which the original pulpit was combined into another pulpit and is still used to this day. Today it is given the title ‘Wycliffe’s Pulpit’.
In Lutterworth I was shown an 19th century picture of Wycliffe in one of the rooms at Lutterworth church which shows Wycliffe with 11 or so converts being instructed by Wycliffe at the doorway of his vicarage. His motioning hand implying that he was instructing fellow Christians to go out amongst the people and take the Bible to them.
TITHES AND MINISTRY ARE NOT ABOUT MONEY
Wycliffe amazed me when I learned that he denied that congregations were bound to give 10% of their earnings to the church. Wycliffe taught that the Old Testament tithing was no longer binding for the Christian and although he supported the free giving of funds for a minister, money was not to be given if the priest failed to fulfil his role. Clearly Wycliffe did not support tea drinking ministers who fail to study the scriptures, deliver fluffy sermons that last 20 minutes and offer no meat but only milk to his congregation. Wycliffe’s boldness in his defence of the scriptures is evidence of what his sermons must have actually been like. Few are like Wycliffe in his plain boldness and clarity of declaration that when the church departs from the scriptures, it is time to depart from the church. In 1377 Wycliffe was called to appear before the courts in St Paul’s, London. At his trial, it was evident that Wycliffe had too many friends and a great crowd gathered and the mob disrupted the trial and an earthquake is said to have taken place also. This was seen as an act of God.
WHY AM I SO INSPIRED BY WYCLIFFE?
What so passionately inspires me about John Wycliffe is his absolute devotion to seeing the actual word of God in the hands of the people. Not merely seen through denominational theology, commentaries or sermons, or well crafted creeds and authorities, but through the pure word of The Word. Wycliffe never pointed people to his sermons, or to himself and said ‘if you want to know the truth of scripture, then read my book or hear my sermons, no, he pointed them directly to the pure Word of God and the accounts it contains. Wycliffe knew the reality and power of the scriptures that once they were given into the hands of the people, their truth will be known amongst those who are of the Spirit. But likewise, Wycliffe knew of the dangers that would come with men’s abuse of the scriptures.
Wycliffe knew that translating the scriptures into English would not deminish the abuse of them, but it may even further their abuse, but still, we must see the Scriptures in the hands of everyman, for him to freely examine for himself without measuring them by creeds or with the aid or need of priests or popes, denominal authorities. So in answer to my own question “Why I am so inspired by Wycliffe?” The answer is that this is is my mission also. Not to promote my sermons or writings, although they are available, but to promote a return to the purity of the word of God and the words and truth it contains. Not measured by councils or creeds, commentaries or arguements, but by the pure rendering of the text of scripture and the Holy Spirit.
It is the work of the Holy Spirit and the pure power of the word of God alongside the obedience and passion of Wycliffe through which we have an English Bible today. All other English translations are mere shadows in comparison to the absolute, unselfish, non-political, non-financially driven motives of men such as Wycliffe and Tyndale, who’s absolute desire was to see the word of God given without corruption, directly into the hands of the common people, to read, to study and to freely interpret. Modern translations do not come anywhere near the absolute dignity and honour of early English translations such as these. The Wycliffe translation may be justifiably critiqued for its translation, but it can never be rightly critiqued for its pure heart and perfect desire.
I praise God for Wycliffe who through obedience to God, gave us the Bible in English.
Today, the writings of Wycliffe are not so easy to come by, but the Wycliffe New Testament is still published in modern spelling, and I would propose that all Christians and none-Christians everywhere, do what you can to get a copy of this wonderful translation and read it, study it and enjoy it. It was written for all of us.