Jesus According to John the Baptist.

John the apostle makes a great deal of the testimony of John the Baptist who came to bear witness to the light (1:7).  In the two passages where John the Baptist appears in the gospel (1:19-34 and 3:22-36), John testifies some significant things about the 'coming one':

     1.  He is much greater than John (1:27). John denies that he is the Messiah or Elijah or 'the prophet'. He is merely the voice of one calling in the wilderness 'make straight paths for the Lord'. Despite John's fame as a fearless and genuine prophet, he is not even worthy to untie the laces of his sandals. This is also implicit in his statement that the one who comes after him 'has surpassed me because he is before me' (1:28)

     2.  He is 'the Lamb of God who takes away the Sin of the World' (1:31). This is quite different to the expectation that he will be the Messiah. There are a number of 'lambs' in the background of Israel's history (the sheep that took the place of Isaac, the passover lamb, the 'scapegoat' of Leviticus 16 that takes away the peoples sin, the guilt offering of Lev 16 and Numbers 4 and the lamb lead to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7). While the reference is ambiguous it seems clear that the idea is of a lamb that dies to pay the penalty for sins. This theme will reappear in the gospel.

     3.  He is the One who baptises with the Holy Spirit (1:33).  John insists that his baptism is only with water, but that the coming one - on whom the Holy Spirit descended at his baptism - this one will baptise with the Holy Spirit. While we must wait to fully understand its significance, we can assume that the washing with the Holy Spirit involves both the forgiveness of sins and the beginning of the indwelling of the Spirit which assures us of his presence and our connection with him (14:16-17).

     4.  He is the Son of God (1:34). The term 'Son of God' is equivalent to Messiah, making this a claim that Jesus is the one the Jews have been waiting for - the one they looked for to restore their nation and to rule over God's people forever. (There is a textual variant which makes the reading 'the chosen one of God' - but this would likely point to the same idea in different language).

* When John is questioned at a later time about about Jesus ('why does he baptise?') he again emphasises his priority: 'He must become greater, I must become less' (3:30). He also testifies that:

     5.  He is the One who Comes from Above (3:31). 'The one who comes from above is above all' (3:31) John here implies what has already been said in 1:1-2 and 14, that the Word was with God and was God and that the Word became flesh in the person of Jesus. This is a claim for the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus. This ties in with his statement of 1:30, where John says of his (younger) cousin: 'A man who comes after me is be has surpassed me because he is before me.'

     6.  He is the One who Speaks the Words of God (3:34). If Jesus is the one who 'comes from above' it is not surprising that he speaks the words of God, for he is God the Son and the father has given him the Spirit without limit.

     7.  He is the Beloved Son (3:35). 'The father loves the Son and places everything in his hands'. In 1:14 and 1:18 the word is called the 'One and Only' or the 'only begotten'. Whatever else this phrase means it emphasises the uniqueness of the Son and his special relationship with the Father. The Son is his Father's beloved and God the Father has placed 'everything' in his hands. He rules over all things!

     8.  He is the One who determines our Eternity (3:36). Our response to the Son therefore determines our eternity. If anyone rejects the Son, he will not see life 'for God's wrath remains on him', but anyone who believes (trusts / follows) the son already has eternal life (Having had their sins forgiven and being baptised by the Spirit).

How do we respond to John's testimony? Do we accept what he says? If so, then how will we respond to Jesus - will we believe and have eternal life or reject him and receive God's wrath? 

Reflections on the Levy to Purchase Land for New Churches

On Wednesday night our diocesan Synod decided to impose a Levy (a tax for a specific purpose) on every parish in the diocese of 2.24% of Gross Operating Receipts in order to provide $2 million per year to fund the purchase of land in new growth or 'greenfields' areas of the diocese. (Another article from the decision is on the Sydneyanglicans website.) The money will be given to the Mission Property Committee to purchase land for new churches when it becomes available. While I agree that we should be seeking to buy (at least some) land in these areas, I think the levy was the wrong thing to do for a number of reasons:

1.  A Levy is a blunt Instrument. Although we might say that it is fair because each church pays an equal percentage, it cannot take into account the different situation of each parish – the fledgling versus the established; those that have significant incomes from rentals or trusts versus those that have large debts; those that have good numbers of relatively wealthy members versus those that have a large percentage of unemployed or working poor. There is currently NO provision to exempt or to help those churches that will struggle to pay the levy. While 2.24% might not seem like much it will represent at least $2,000 in the smallest churches and obviously much more in larger churches. All this is extra money that has to be put in the plate!

2.  It will hurt the smallest churches.  There were a number of comments from very small churches - some of which struggle to pay their ministers already (one admitted to only paying their minister 65% of the recommended / minimum stipend) that this could be the last nail in their coffin. Whether a small church is shrinking or growing, if they are struggling to pay their bills already, this will be a cruel blow. It is worth remembering Paul's words in the context of the appeal to the Corinthians for support for the churches of Palestine: 'Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.' (2 Cor 8:13)

3. It will have a negative impact on churches trying to grow. Almost every church has to increase its budget a few percent (perhaps 4 to 5%) every year to cover cost increases (salaries, power bills etc.) Churches that are seeking to grow are often seeking to increase their budget more - especially when they are creating new paid ministry positions or have some other special project. This can often mean an increase of 10% or more from year to year. The extra 2.24% on top of this will make it that much more difficult to reach budget (ie. pay staff) and has (anecdotally) already led some churches not to seek to grow their staff and in some instances not to replace staff that are leaving.

4.  Has the MPC considered alternative models for church planting and land purchases? The MPC did present some examples of what has been achieved, but they seemed to present a simple model of one church per suburb, with a large (350 seat) auditorium and associated spaces. + one residence. The question is whether this is a realistic or even an appropriate model. Should we aim for a few smaller and a few larger churches? Or space the church buildings out more and aim to plant smaller congregations in school halls in between? Or just build a school which will have a community church? Or a retirement village? The models they use will determine the amount of money they need. We at least need the MPC and others to do the research and consider alternatives.

5.  Taxing Churches to support an external ministry vision is un-Biblical. A key passage here is 2 Corinthians 9:7 'Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.' While Paul is trying to urge the Corinthians to give he also emphasises that it should not be under compulsion. Christianity is a religion of grace! Leaders ought to lay the vision and the need before the people and allow them to give out of a generous heart. I wonder if the apostles ever thought of getting Matthew or Zaccheus to use their skills as tax collectors to collect the offertories of the early church? What we ought to have is an appeal done properly with the full support and zeal of our diocesan leadership!

6.  We Need More Money than Can be Raised by this Levy.  We actually need to raise more than $2 million dollars per year to fund not only the purchase of land, but to support church planters, re-vitalise existing ministries, build new church buildings and much more. We haven't yet addressed the fact that our losses in the GFC mean we are now spending at least $2 million per year spread around the diocese (through the regional councils) LESS than we were five years ago!  I think we ought to aim for $5 million per year - and I think that is more likely to be raised through properly coordinated appeals than through levies.

And a late addition:

7.  It Puts Property Before People.   The levy is all about prioritising the purchase of land in new areas. Although we have recently lost much of the money that was being applied to growing ministries (through regional councils etc), our first response at raising new funding is not being applied to people but to property. I for one think it is a bad look!

I would love your feedback - anything here I've got wrong / misunderstood / overstated?

How to Hear God's Word - Video by Andrew Heard

How can I really hear God's voice? How can I really hear him speaking?

This talk by Andrew Heard is part of the Bible Society's 'Live Light in 25 Words' promotion of Bible reading. Very helpful to help us understand (or remind us) why reading the Bible is so important to Christian living.

.
Check out other videos on the Bible Society website.
.