Blog

I have been pondering an incident described in 1 Kings 3.

Two women are living together, and each has a baby son. Overnight, one of the children dies. The mother of the dead child swaps her child for the living one, claiming it to be hers. The two mothers approach the king for his decision on what to do, how to resolve the conflict of both mothers claiming the live child as their own.

This incident is included in Scripture as an example of King Solomon’s wisdom which he demonstrated by ordering that the living child is cut in two and each mother should receive half of the baby. We are then told,

26 The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”

But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”

27 Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”

When I have considered this story before it has been from the viewpoint of the King. Which is natural, Solomon asked God for wisdom, and he received it. However, prompted by a recent book I have just finished, Healed and Whole: Biblical Wisdom for Men and Women in Ministry by Abigail Flavell, I have been looking at the episode from the viewpoint of the mother of the living child. Once I seek to put myself in her shoes it is overwhelming.

She is being tested in an extreme way. I can’t imagine how she must have felt when her friend swapped her living baby for a dead one. Knowing the truth but being unable to prove it. Feeling a mixture of sorrow for her friend’s loss but that being swamped with anger at the cruel stealing of her new baby. Then rather than justice being done the King intends to kill her son. It must have been unbearable. What emotions must she have been feeling when she says to let the other mother have the baby rather than for him to be killed. What kind of life does she see in front of her knowing that this other woman, who she would have perceived as evil, bringing up her son.

It recalls many other examples of testing in the Bible, Abraham when he is asked to sacrifice Isaac, the story of Job, Jesus in the wilderness. Testing, on the surface, always feels cruel. Certainly, I don’t look forward to being tested. However, Solomon’s purpose was not for evil but for good, he wanted to bring about justice. Whilst the incident was unfolding the poor woman couldn’t have known that. All of God’s testing is for our good, however whilst it is happening, we don’t know what the end of the story will be. 

Often God tests us by asking us to give up things or even taking things away. Sometimes it can even feel as important as a child but fortunately that is very rare. The thing about testing is we don’t know what the outcome will be, we must trust that it is for the best, we must trust God. We know that we can trust him because the Father did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all. He then brought him back to life. 

The mother in the story had to trust the fate of her son to the king, he ultimately proved wise and trustworthy. When asked to let go of things for our Father in heaven, we need to remember he is even more wise and trustworthy than King Solomon. 

In her book Abi applies the lesson to her own testing of being asked to step back from her sense of calling in Christian ministry because of issues of what roles women could play in the church she and her husband were involved in. For her it felt very costly, yet she did it trusting in God. Like the mother who received her child back, Abi has received her ministry back in ways she couldn’t imagine. Abi was able to declare that God is faithful.

Hearing stories of how things turn out are helpful. However, when you are in the middle of the story, like this mother, it is by no means easy. I feel for what she went through but rejoice in the end of the story.

Tony Thompson

I am Jon Gledhill, and will shortly be completing 1st year of BSSM.  BSSM stands for Bethel school of supernatural ministry. The course can now be attended remotely as well as in person at Redding. The goal is to lead students into authentic revival impacting people where they live and with verifiable miracles being the norm.  I have seen many such miracles. God only has one natural. Supernatural.

I am in one of dozens of groups of 25 students from USA Germany Brazil and other nations. Katy Harris who leads my own Bethel revival group is a very empowering leader.

Every Wednesday at 5-7.30pm our group goes “live” in the UK (9am in California) using zoom type technology.

Testimony is strongly encouraged as well as honouring each other. We are encouraged to develop as leaders taking increasing responsibility.

Recent Testimony
I needed 1000 USD to meet demand for www.seethemessage.com books where people were being drawn to faith in Christ. The Bethel team stood with me. I asked the Lord for 1000 USD. It came in suddenly! I found that a London based leader who I had no contact with and knew nothing of the ministry need we had was praying for an opportunity to serve the middle east. He found that money from his account had gone into mine !!  – When I called him he was overjoyed and laughing because he had no idea about the funds changing route but heard is funds were serving the church abroad. He said his prayer was answered. We believe an angel had been despatched from Jesus to help us out. Yes the supernatural is real.

This is typical of what happens at Bethel where the impossible becomes possible because of the God we serve. Prophetic accuracy is encouraged as well as supernatural testimony. I have served in delivering prophecy.

Why not apply to join BSSM remote yourself? It’s a small group that will take you places! 

Jon Gledhill

Reflections on what God is doing in the UK and how the church should respond.

I have just finished reading a thought provoking and encouraging book, Brierley, Justin. The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God: Why New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again. Tyndale House Publishers. Kindle Edition. 

Justin has hosted radio programmes in which he has over the years interviewed various influential thinkers such as Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray and Tom Holland. Whilst most of those interviewed have not become whole-hearted followers of Jesus, some have. Importantly a growing number are seeing and speaking about the relevance and the positive impact of Christianity. They are very open to Christianity, and many have become regular church goers. He therefore concludes that the tide is turning and there is a new openness to the gospel. I would agree. 

What is fascinating is Brierley’s description of the type of churches that are needed to respond to this new openness to the gospel. He identifies three important characteristics.

1. Embrace Both Reason and Imagination

He cites both C.S. Lewis and Tolkien as thinkers from a previous generation who were able to communicate the truth of the gospel not just to the intellect but also to the imagination. Brierley suggests that we need both, but we need to start with the heart.

As shocking as it may sound from somebody whose day job is in apologetics, these stories remind us that the most fruitful way we can introduce people to the Christian story is through the realm of the imagination rather than the intellect. We do that by making people want Christianity to be true in the first place, by showing how it meets our deepest instincts about what matters most. Only then can apologetics—the work of showing them why it is true—be of any use. P213

Lewis wrote one of the most effective books explaining the rational case for Christianity, Mere Christianity, however his series of children’s stories about the fictional world of Narnia have had a much greater impact, as they impact the imagination. We need storytellers.

I find this challenging, as whilst I naturally focus on reasoned argument, I recognise the need to engage the imagination. We need to encourage those who are gifted in doing that to do so in preaching, writing and other forms of communication. I see the need to grow in this area myself.

2. Keep Christianity Weird

Justin says that many churches seek to be seen as normal and to embrace popular culture wherever possible. However, that is not what people are looking for. They are dissatisfied with popular, celebrity culture and are looking for something different. 

While there’s no advantage to creating unnecessary barriers, the lesson appears to be that churches shouldn’t dumb down their worship or their doctrine in order to win new converts. They should demand more, not less, of the people who come through their doors. Embrace mystery, expect the supernatural, and keep Christianity weird. P225

He says the churches that are most effective in reaching adults are those that bring something distinctive, Cathedrals, Black Pentecostal Churches and Charismatic evangelical churches. 

He quotes historian Tom Holland, 

Lamenting the way the church often replaces this miraculous story with a “mush” of platitudinous “thought for the day” broadcasts and politically correct public announcements, he says it’s time to be bolder: “The churches need to absolutely embrace [their beliefs] rather than being slightly embarrassed about them. . . . The churches have to lay claim to everything that is weirdest, most countercultural, most peculiar. Don’t duck all the stuff about angels—major on that!” P223-224

I see this as an encouragement to be authentically ourselves and not try to conform to a stereotype that we think is attractive to those outside the church.

3. Create a Community That Counters Cancel Culture

Brierley acknowledges the challenges faced by the church in the UK which has resulted in splits and fall outs. However, he says we should not despair over this. The world is looking for a place where we can discuss things about which we disagree in a healthy way. We need to learn to disagree agreeably!

The church is meant to be the preeminent example of unity in diversity—a place where people who are fundamentally different from each other can still call each other brother and sister, because what unites us is far bigger than what separates us. P227

This is in total contrast to the world as it is today, where we cancel those with whom we disagree. 

The church needs to be a place of countercultural grace in a polarized, moralistic, and unforgiving society. Grace is the antidote to cancel culture, and people are desperate for it. Perhaps the greatest witness the church can offer society is that, even when we disagree, we can still love each other. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another,” said Jesus (John 13:35). Not by your shared political views, not even by your sound theology. By your love. P227

Much encouragement but also much food for thought. I am convinced that God will build His church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The church in the west does have a future. There is growing evidence of this happening. There are also pointers to the type of church that will prevail.

Tony Thompson

Jesus and the Gentiles

This is the second of my reflections on racism as found in the Bible. In this blog I look at episodes in the life of Jesus as recorded in Mark’s gospel.  These passages of teaching lay the foundations for the people of God to include Jews and Gentiles together as the people of God. Together they break the perception that Jews only were God’s chosen people. They form the basis on which we should seek to break down any and every ethnic barrier within the people of God. I start with Mark 7.

The chapter starts with reflections on what makes people unclean, in other words unacceptable to God, what excludes people from the community. Mark 7v1-23. Jesus insists it is conduct, not things, that defile and exclude. The implication of this for those who have ears to hear was that Gentiles could be included in the people of God. This is developed in the next paragraph, 7v24-30. Jesus is confronted by a Gentile woman whose daughter has an “unclean” spirit. The woman, nameless and identified only by her ethnic group, asks Jesus to cast out the unclean demon, but he declares that his ministry is to “the children” (Jews) and not “the dogs” (Gentiles). That is, for all his instruction about defilement, it appears Jesus remains committed to the notion that his work is with Jews, that is, with the chosen, well-beloved people of God. I, and others, suspect that he was testing her by saying he gave priority in his ministry to Jews. Whatever the motivation, he makes a radical statement of the priority of ministry to Jews. The woman, however, persists and instructs Jesus in a way that calls out the uncritical assumption about the privilege and preference of his people. It is a dramatic moment where old assumptions are broken by a voice of insistence from outside of Jewish privilege and superiority. That is a voice that persists whenever we claim a certain people, a particular ethnicity, have special privileges before God. Jesus was provoking the women and was very happy to endorse her.

This is clear when we look at chapter 7 in the context it is found within the Gospel as a whole. It is remarkable and significant that just before this encounter, Jesus has performed a “feeding miracle” in Galilee, that is, for Jews, 6:30–44. And just after this encounter he performs a “feeding miracle” in the Decapolis, that is, for Gentiles, 8:1–10. This dramatic encounter with the Gentile woman is a pivot in the gospel. His next action demonstrates that he totally agrees with the point being made and promptly acts on it. He moves out of the safe cocoon of working with the perceived chosen people and in a concrete way includes others into his ministry, into the chosen people of God. 

We see here in the middle of Marks’ gospel the inclusive nature of the ministry of Jesus, which became the basis of the work of the church drawing Jews and Gentiles together into the community of faith. It started with Jesus, not with the early church. However, it was picked up by the early church. 

Peter in Acts 10 is confronted by a vision of foods that would, if eaten, make someone unclean. Would exclude them from the people of God. Yet he is told to take and eat. He sees this as undermining the purity code he had relied on that separated Jews from Gentiles. This is equivalent to the discussion at the beginning of Mark 7. The word from God is insistent: “What God has made clean, you must not call profane” (v. 15). After a reiteration of this exchange three times, it is not easy for Peter, but he gets it. The drama was only about unclean food. Peter, however, is quite able to extrapolate from the drama of food to broader social practice. He explains to his visitors from Joppa what the drama of his trance means: “You yourself know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean” (v. 28). He first acknowledges the traditional teaching of his people that was based on exclusion. What God has shown him is that the old purity distinctions are gone. What God has taught him is that purity codes and the separation that goes with them no longer pertain.

The examples of Jesus, Peter and the early church teach us that the Gospel is not exclusive, it embraces every ethnicity. But of course, history tells otherwise. The church has continually to be summoned out of its sense of being exclusively chosen, so that it embraces all “peoples, tongues, and races,” because, as Peter attests, “God shows no partiality” (v. 34).

We should therefore continually follow the example of Jesus and declare and enact the truth that we are all one in Christ Jesus. We do that by creating multicultural churches that value ethnic diversity.

Tony Thompson