Conversation transcript copied and pasted from the impressive (professional) site:
Alistair: Well, first of all, you know, I hope that I will be different. The old song that we never sing—you know, “It’s not my brother nor my sister, but it’s me, O Lord, standing in the need of prayer”—I mean, that is foundationally the case. And so I hope that that would be multiplied. I hope that our church family, those who choose to read this book, that it might have an impact among us. Because learning to say, “I’m sorry,” learning to say, “Please forgive me,” learning to say, you know, “I’m not at my best at the moment; can you come alongside me?” learning to say, “Yes, I know that these people believe a very different agenda, that their lifestyle is orientated in another direction,” and learning to say, “But I have no basis upon which I could argue that I myself would not be where they are were it not for the amazing grace of God, were it not for his compassion towards me.”
And in very specific areas this comes across. I mean, you and I know that we field questions all the time that go along the lines of “My grandson is about to be married to a transgender person, and I don’t know what to do about this, and I’m calling to ask you to tell me what to do”—which is a huge responsibility.
And in a conversation like that just a few days ago—and people may not like this answer—but I asked the grandmother, “Does your grandson understand your belief in Jesus?”
“Yes.”
“Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in life?”
“Yes.”
I said, “Well then, okay. As long as he knows that, then I suggest that you do go to the ceremony. And I suggest that you buy them a gift.”
“Oh,” she said, “what?” She was caught off guard.
I said, “Well, here’s the thing: your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, ‘These people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.’”
And it is a fine line, isn’t it? It really is. And people need to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.[11] But I think we’re going to take that risk. We’re going to have to take that risk a lot more if we want to build bridges into the hearts and lives of those who don’t understand Jesus and don’t understand that he is a King.
Bob: John tells us he was “full of grace and truth,”[12] and we have to figure out how we can be full of grace and truth at the same time, don’t we?
Alistair: Yeah. Yeah, our words should be “full of grace” and “seasoned with salt.”[13]
Extract from
SEPTEMBER 1, 2023
‘The Christian Manifesto’ Interview
by Alistair Begg and Bob Lepine
Luke 6:20–49(ID: 3617)
In this interview about his book The Christian Manifesto, Alistair Begg considers the challenge presented to us in Jesus’ Sermon on the Plain and its relevance two thousand years later. The Lord’s teachings on forgiveness, possessions, obedience, and more, speak to and make demands on believers from every background. But as we remember the compassionate character of our Lord and put our trust in Him, we can learn to live the life He’s called us to with perseverance and humility.
Allen Hampton: I have not read more, but this website appears to me to be a rich resource in audio material on Jesus. The method followed by Alastair Begg is evidently different to mine!
There has been controversy in the USA over Mr Begg's grandson answer. The topic has arisen here because Mr Begg speaks at a Katoomba, Sydney, conference this month.
I note that the broadcasts are available in many places, including Victoria:
As always, including for everything in my blog, please check your own Bible!
For myself - I would distinguish "wedding" from "marriage". A wedding is a cultural artefact, not something ordained by God.
A Godly marriage, as the critics say, is made by God. Everything God says - see Jesus' teaching - is about a marriage between a man and a woman.
A marriage simply in the legal sense is another matter.
Here, the Parliament can and has decided that almost any couple relationship can be a legal marriage. So, the definition in Australian Law has: "marriage means the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." (Marriage Act 1961 2A). The people uniting in exclusivity have to be minimum 18 years, (except the Court may give consent for 16 or 17 year-olds). The Law prescribes for Celebrants processes aimed to ensure there is no coercion of a party.
As far as I know, there is no angst over having to be a "people". "Person" and "people" seem to be acceptable terms.
I do not know the legal situation in the USA, etc, but here, I again assert, a lot of bother would dissolve away if Churches ceased to deliver the legal marriage contracts. The state regulates the legal situation. The legally married issue is really a state matter now, whatever it was before. Why do Churches act as agents of the State? I have old posts on this line:
https://jesussaviour4unme.blogspot.com/2017/09/marriage-v2_13.html
And - what do people do who become followers of Jesus but are already in another kind of legal marriage? That would be like people in polygamous marriages deciding they want to align themselves with a view of the Bible. I have read that harsh consequences were imposed upon wives being sent away. Was that what their own conscience dictated to the men? Or was it what others told them? What pressure was applied?
I can envisage a divorce and even a subsequent marriage. There is a comparable Old Testament precedent in Ezra chapters 9 and 10, where "foreign" wives are to be divorced. (It is possible that at that time the men and the wives were "sent away", but this is unclear.) What did their consciences dictate?
The Ezra story contrasts with that of the more ancient "heroes" who had multiple wives, like Jabob, David, Solomon, or - did David and Solomon have "wives"? (In Deuteronomy 21 there are instructions on a man changing his mind about his multiple wives.)
These records are hard to credit, in the sense of 'how can this be'? How could they diverge so far from the creation plan (see below)? Do ignorance, dominance and aggression play a part? (Sometimes for the powerful there were political motivations and 'high politics' in creating alliances.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated. Allen Hampton