I read this provocative article some time ago. The background was the widespread ‘lockdown’ across much of the western world in light of the covid-19 pandemic. The writer highlighted that one consequence of this lockdown is the acceleration of the secularisation of our world. In particular, Church leaders necessarily have less time to spend with their people, less time to directly influence their thinking and habits, less time to spot unhelpful influences taking root, etc.

At about the same time, I read J. Sidlow Baxter’s Rethinking our priorities. This book, written during the 1970s bemoans certain weaknesses developing in Church in the USA.I cannot comment on how different the UK Church was at that time. However, in his final chapter, Preach the Word, Baxter highlights an important practice which he feared was being neglected. That was simply the private reading of the Bible.

Reading the Bible is not the same as studying the Bible. For those of us who are not Church leaders, Bible reading should take precedence over study. Our calling and our responsibilities and commitments do not usually allow time for extended study. So reading is especially important.

Baxter suggests three great benefits of regular, consecutive reading, to which I add my own comments in light of the more recent article.

We gain a vivid sense of the presence of God in history. Our God is not absent. Deism is the view that implies that God created everything and then stood back, no longer interested. I do not accept Deism as a true understanding of our world. The God and Father of Jesus Christ is present and involved. Indeed, in the week in which I am writing, I can point to specific answers to prayer. Whatever our circumstances, God is here, present, active, loving and good.

We gain a profound awareness of the divine sovereignty. Our God is ultimately in charge of the world and its affairs. That is not an easy thing to appreciate when we see so much which seems wrong. Yet we pray, ‘Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven,’ as Christ taught us to. Although there remains much that is not subject to Him (Hebrews 2.8) there will come a time when all is subject to God.

We receive a comprehensive grasp of divine revelation. Our God speaks. His word remains relevant. Our times are not so ‘unprecedented’ (a word that has been frequently used this year) that God’s word ceases to be relevant. Indeed, the Bible has very many examples of confinement and restriction! God’s ways of love and compassion, mercy and justice, goodness and holiness, remain the standard for living.

So, get into the word. Read it. Consecutively. Read a few (or more) chapters at once. Read one gospel over a weekend. Let the flow of divine revelation saturate your thinking. Let the words of the Bible hold sway over other content (news, opinion, entertainment, etc).

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/churches-battle-form-christians/

This title is ascribed to David in 1 Sam 13.14. Yet, later in his life, he fell into serious sin. See the events recorded in 2 Sam 11. Paul is not embarrassed to refer to David (Acts 13.22). His story is in the Bible, yet he is described as a man after God’s own heart.

When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then had her husband Uriah killed, David was acting out of character.

I think there is a contrast with Amnon and Shimeah, who appear in the narrative of David’s life. They have major and persistent character flaws.

Most people act in character most of the time; whether that is good or not so good.

An observation – I often see an item in the media where a one-off event is portrayed as a regular practice. For example, a patient dies when a nurse administers 100 times a dose. This becomes; ‘hospital staff poison patients!’ This is extremely damaging, and too common. Further it fees prejudice.

When we treat others harshly, are we considering a one-off event, an out-of-character incident, or persistent rebellion and lawless behaviour?

There are indications of interaction between the apostles Paul and Peter, and their churches.

Both apostles refer to each other in their letters. They assumed that their readers were aware of the other apostles. In a context of Christian unity, Paul mentions Cephas (Peter) in 1 Cor 1.11. Similarly, Peter mentions Paul’s epistles in the same breath as ‘the other Scriptures.’ Neither criticises the other.

There is a different situation in Gal 2, where Paul does refer critically to Peter, although only in respect of a specific incident. Paul does not criticise his ministry. In fact in the first part of that chapter, Paul indicates agreement with Peter and the other apostles in Jerusalem.

Silas and Mark both worked with Paul and Peter at different times.

Some churches were in relationship with different apostles at different times. For example, Ephesus and Laodicea are both referred to in relation to Paul and John. Churches in Galatia are both addressed by Paul and Peter. The reasons for these changes are not given. From other scriptures we assume teamwork and unity, not division.

The New Testament does not lay down a strict formula for the way apostles interacted, or how workers or churches moved between them. Such a formulaic approach is out of keeping with the ‘way of life’ presented in the NT.

Similarly, the values of the NT include unity, teamwork, support, friendship, co-operation. Where, for example, workers serve with both Paul and Peter, we would want to draw the conclusion that they did so with full agreement and commendation. The alternative, of frequent fallings out, cannot be commended.