-------A FAIR TRIAL-------

Everyone had been fair to her.

There had been no two a.m. knock on Janice's door. The officer who served the summons one Saturday afternoon had been most helpful.

"You're charged under the World Religion Act," he explained, "with believing in Jesus as Messiah and the only way to God. It is, of course, a capital offence. But don't worry. You'll get a fair trial."

Janice was granted legal aid. All believers were; it ensured that everyone accused of a crime that carried the death penalty would be treated equally. The counsel for her defence was also a woman.

"You won't be asked how you plead," she told Janice firmly. "Nor will you be called to the witness box. We can't have you making a martyr of yourself. But don't you worry. You'll get a fair trial."

And the trial was a model of justice being seen to be done. When counsel for the prosecution thundered accusingly at the enormity of the crime Janice was charged with, several times the judge stopped him in mid-sentence, cautioning him against overstepping the bounds of court procedure. But as Janice's counsel presented the case for the defence, the judge listened most attentively, nodding with pursed lips, taking fulsome notes. Yet for her, what was being said against her went by in a torrent of phrases, lost under the hammering of her heart.

The judge's words addressed directly to her captured her full understanding. His tone was grave but almost kindly. A trial where the death penalty is prescribed by law needs a special kind of judge.

"Janice: you are charged with a most serious offence, namely that of believing in Jesus as Messiah and the only way to God. It is perhaps understandable that society views such a crime with abhorrence, demanding the death penalty for all found to be guilty." He paused. Janice was calm now. The judge continued: "Counsel for the prosecution painted a word- picture of you in dark and sombre colours. He has - rightly enough - laid great emphasis on the damage which belief in Jesus as Messiah and the only way to God could do to our united World Religion. Yet in the interests of a fair trial I interrupted him when he allowed his oratory to stray from the realms of fact and venture into the realms of imagination. However..."

Something in the judge's tone made Janice uneasy.

"However, counsel for the defence has presented a most clear case in your favour; one which I am bound to consider seriously. Firstly, although she concedes that the Bible, which the prosecution alleged was discovered at your flat, was indeed purchased and owned by you, yet she makes the point that ownership of such a book has never implied a belief in its contents. Indeed, until recently, this court has had such a book for the archaic custom of taking the oath."

The judge smiled and shook his head slightly. "Counsel for the prosecution has made capital out of a regrettable period of - ah - religious enthusiasm you went through during your teenage years. But your counsel discounts this as being a sad but necessary part of the mistakes many of us make as we grow up. Mistakes, I might add, we mostly leave behind us."

The judge paused and looked sternly at Janice. "However, your counsel has concluded her defence by submitting affidavits from an impressive number of your neighbours, relatives, friends and colleagues at work. All strenuously deny you have ever given the slightest indication of being a believer at any time. I find insufficient evidence in your life and conduct to support the accusation that you are a believer, and accordingly declare you not guilty."

The counsel for the defence shook Janice gently by the shoulder. "Thank the judge," she whispered. "You're free. I told you it would be a fair trial."

Tears began to pour down Janice's cheeks. She could only repeat to herself, over and over again: "They had no evidence. They - had - no - evidence. And it was a fair trial."

Sometime around 1978 we quit church.

And where once such an action would have been dismissed as rebellion and backsliding, today with tens of thousands of believers having left any form of religious organisation, it is being recognised as a phenomenon of Christian life. So ministers and elders are giving serious thought to how they might stem the outflow, and they suggest many ideas for re- vamping the church to bring about yet another counter- reformation.

We want to say:

Because new wine will not go into old wineskins.

Why did we quit church?

Not because of bad experiences. Oh, to be sure, with a combined total of 77 years of religion between us (then!) we knew a fund of religious horror stories. Anecdotes of events in the various groups we'd attended that ranged from the side-splittingly stupid to the immoral and dishonest.

But we never dropped out because of them. Bad experiences are par for the course wherever you find people.

So why did we give up?

Bear in mind that we both came from deeply religious families. We and our children were active in church life. We had followed a path that led from a serious, calvinist- oriented beginning, through middle-of-the-road evangelical organisations, to a growing and successful charismatic church.

But we quit. Why?

Simply because we had accepted the religious structure at its own evaluation; we had given it our best shots; we had taken seriously the stated and implied concept that it was the area in which the Lord worked.

And after years in that environment we could no longer ignore the fact that church was a continual source of disappointment, compromise and frustration.

Except, perhaps, in the initial euphoria of some new work or change of leader, the rules and the pressures and the protocol and the shibboleths prevented what we understood as God's will in our lives from being done fully.

Even corporately, goals were only achieved - if they were achieved at all - by ignoring, opposing, or quietly subverting the very system that churches stand for.

We could not honestly support a religious system and follow the Lord's leading at the same time.

The very fact that church is a construction makes it (and its members) strive to perpetuate its existence. It therefore becomes a kingdom of man, using human means to survive. It depends on very earthly systems of organisation and funding and monuments or else it would rapidly become as extinct as the mighty dinosaurs which once stamped so impressively across the earth.

We were tired of long hours spent trying to fan sparks of enthusiasm in reluctant believers. We begrudged the thousands of dollars going towards administration and buildings and endless in-house activities. We saw how Christians were encouraged to accept the lead of ministers and elders, rather than actual and dynamic directions from God.

So we left.

With no rancour. No dramatic gestures.

Once outside, we experienced two strong feelings. One was relief from pressure. Our diary had always been full. There had been few spare evenings. Sundays had never, ever, been days of rest, no matter how much (or, on occasion, how little) we might have enjoyed them. No longer did we have to conform to standards of dress, language and behaviour common to "our" group.

The other feeling was of a distinct let-down.

Church life produces a high. A buzz. If you disagree - abstain for a month and note your reactions.

The togetherness, the in-phrases, the uplift of music all had combined to form a powerful stimulant. Going cold turkey gives painful withdrawal symptoms.

But what we had not lost was the presence of God.

He was as important to our lives as ever. Perhaps more important. Because now we didn't have to distinguish between the emotion generated by prolonged "praise and worship" and the real yet unspectacular business of everyday life with the Lord.

Nobody made demands on our bank balance. Nobody, that is, except the King.

Expensive? Very, sometimes. But it's easier to be the proverbial cheerful giver when the command comes from Jesus the Messiah rather than some speaker in a pulpit.

Once we were out of the religious kingdom, our evangelism took a new turn.

Let's be frank. We had problems with evangelism in the past. No, we hadn't been hesitant or shy. Both of us had known the reality of an encounter with King Jesus, and later the reality of being filled with the Holy Spirit, so we had little hesitation in telling outsiders that they could know God personally.

Our problem (helped by what we'd learned as Calvinists) was that even if salvation needs a response from the individual - there must be a prior work of the Holy Spirit to prepare the person. Call it conviction of sin, call it what you will. In times of "revival" that work of the Holy Spirit is intense.

It seemed sadly minimal in our church days.

We made a few converts. Often enough it seemed that we made them entirely by ourselves; God wasn't involved. At best they followed us to church, learned the drill, slotted into the system and simply sat there.

Frankly, it wasn't good enough.

However, when we walked away from church, to our surprise people came to us. It was as if the gospel had abruptly become good news.

Perhaps it always was. Just that somebody made "...and now go to church" the bottom line and spoiled it.

Even the hardest mission field in the world - relatives and neighbours - opened up.

What had we to offer?

Everything or nothing, depending on your viewpoint.

We had no standard approach. Certainly no systematic follow-up or bright welcoming meetings.

If the Lord Jesus didn't become a continuing reality in people's lives, that was the end of the matter.

Quite simply: He - did.

If converts (no longer "our" converts) stopped smoking or began washing, it was because their King told them to. We didn't put our middle-class European values on them.

And if these converts went and told others about Jesus, it was because He was real enough and important enough. We hadn't taught them the "each one win one" technique.

Then there's fellowship...

When we were involved in church life we knew literally hundreds of believers. It was good to meet them on Sundays (and Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays), hug them, exchange blessings and a scrap of news before or after the service or other activity.

Such a shame, though, that there was never enough time to get to know them. In depth, in some real-life setting.

When we dropped out of church, there were numbers of believers who didn't want to know us any more. (Yet further evidence that something calling itself church has taken a biblical term and applied it to itself where it had no authority to do so. Little wonder there is confusion when the word church is used: does it mean a building, a denomination, a membership roll - or those outcalled from the Kingdom of Darkness and united across time and space by a supernatural and sovereign act of God?) Some admitted our action unsettled them, threatened them. Others decided we had turned our backs on the Lord. Still others had no time to spare if we couldn't meet them in church.

But we discovered friends. People who made time.

Some are drop-outers like ourselves. Others are churchgoers - from across the denominational spectrum. Our time is no longer spent in "our box", piously longing for the day when "we all shall be one". Rather we are living in an enjoyment of the oneness that began at the Last Supper and has been attacked by religous institutions ever since.

All this, however, is peripheral.

Outside church - outside the camp, to quote Hebrews - one is totally free to be obedient to the King. Messages do not get filtered through ministers, elders, committees, denominations and the whole rigmarole of religion. Jesus is Lord, actually, immediately, practically and personally.

He is perfectly capable of bringing people together in greater or lesser numbers. He can speak through other believers without their putting pressure on us. He can organise "chance encounters" that form part of a complex network or string of coincidences that can't be taken over by folk with a weakness for organising.

King Jesus is able to rule.

Are these the "end times"? Surely there has to be a period in the world's history, before the return of the Lord, when God's people finally see through the bright and beautiful religious system that has held them in thrall and kept them from being more effective than, say, a government relief agency or social club.

There has to be a time when the gospel is preached with no ulterior motives, no desire to create sub-kingdoms or to make money.

There has to be a time when simply knowing Jesus the Messiah is enough motivation to get us through life - and death.

Every possible permutation of religious organisation has had a fair crack of the whip over the last two thousand years. Now it's time to walk away. Not look back. And make ourselves available and answerable to none other than the Almighty God.

What's up?

Okay, maybe we haven't commissioned one of those penetrating public opinion polls that claim a near-miraculous accuracy of plus or minus one per cent. Still, folk chat to us here and there, and we could perhaps be forgiven for suspecting something's up.

"The dealings". One mini-crisis after another. Lives which would make a fascinating soap-opera, if the problems weren't so real. So painful.

Why? No, not "why does God allow it?" Hopefully that hoary question has been answered once and for all. Rather - why does it appear that uncomfortable, painful events are crowding thick and fast on believers?

Whatever did we do? Perhaps (just perhaps; it's worth a ponder) it's something to do with being alive now.

Look at it this way... Maybe the Lord is coming back. Like - very soon. Which means that for everyone, normal lifestyles will change. Radically. Whatever the order of events on your End Time Chart, one thing's certain: life will never be the same again.

Which could present a few surprises for believers. You see, the Lord normally allows an average three-score-and-ten to teach us a few lessons, instil a bit of wisdom, that kind of thing. Even go over the same lessons more than once - because God's kids can be thick as two short planks, when they try.

Now, maybe we're heretics. Although we believe that sin in the believer is totally removed at death, we don't believe that all saints walk into Paradise with equal wisdom or equal maturity. Salvation is of grace through faith; maturity is of works. You get scars to prove it.

Yet too often (we speak from experience) we get scars, but dip out on maturity. Not Dad's fault; just our stubbornness.

But the point we're making is this: maybe there's less time than usual for us to learn our spiritual tables. And maybe - because the Lord Jesus really does love his conceited little, intellectually handicapped little kids - he's getting us ready as far as possible. So that we're not embarrassed when we meet him.

There's a totally real event we need to be ready for: our first face-to-face encounter with the King. Try this as a possible scenario...

The scene is a vast reception hall, where the Lord is welcoming personally his people. As the lengthy line of saints moves slowly along, Gabriel is at the Lord's side, giving names in a quiet voice.

"Ahem - it's George Anderson, Sir."

"George Anderson! Well done, good and faithful servant!"

"Er - it's Eileen Anderson, Sir."

"Eileen Anderson! Enter into the joy of your Lord!"

(Is that a bit glib? Only slightly; there's scripture to back it. But before we get too smug, an alternative dialogue is also scriptural...)

"Ah - it's George Anderson, Sir."

"George Anderson? One moment... Bind him hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness."

Put your own interpretation on that passage; soften it as much as you wish. But remember that, whatever the scripture means (and it was a story the Lord told, that doesn't seem to relate to the judgement of the heathen), one day we get to meet him.

We may be nervous. Some have fallen at his feet "as one dead".

But let's not be ashamed - if there's still time.

Let's be nice to Ananias and Sapphira.

They've had a bad press. So we'll state that they lied to the Holy Spirit and died from the effects of their enterprise. Now let's see their strong points and learn from them.

After all, God has a purpose in every story he lets into the Bible. Don't just toss around the word "inspiration". Cover to cover, like the cliche says. Ask yourself - whoops: ask Dad - why? Find out what the story is supposed to be saying to thee and we.

Because with this pair, remember it's New Testament time, folks. Grace, style of thing. All manner of sin forgiven, etc, etc. This isn't your Old Covenant with Onan being smit dead for coitus interruptus (note for those of you into condemnation: God isn't against contraception; Onan was simply breaking a straightforward law of inheritance; relax!)

Okay - Ananias and his charming wife Sapphira were UNITED. That word is important. United. How many of you, etc, etc?

Unity 'twixt spouses (spice?) is in dreadfully short supply. Sure, we're far too civilised to have fundamental disagreements with our beloveds, right? Which, in practise, means "Oh, sure, I'd do that/go there/whatever if he/she really wanted".

Like George'd buy Eileen a fur coat if she REALLY wanted one. With the implied conditional clause "but not otherwise, 'cos they cost real money". (Note for animal rights types and feminists: Eileen doesn't even want a possum garment, it's just a f'rinstance.)

Seriously - seldom do husbands and wives ever look hard at areas in their lives and agree. Wholeheartedly. Enthusiastically.

Give 'n' take is nice. Your turn, my turn is neat. But if you take a walk through a concordance and find out what happens when a couple are united on something, you'll wonder why everybody doesn't say to their nearest and queerest: "Stop! Let's talk this over."

The potential for agreement is at its highest in husband and wife. (It works between any two people, the easy way of making it work can be found.)

The sheer power of a united pair is so colossal that God had to stop 'em dead in their tracks, like literally, before they did something devastating. But that's not a warning to inhibit you - it's an encouragement to cash in on the good aspect of it.

Because it gets your prayers answered. Guaranteed.

Let's move on.

Ananias and Sapphira had this block of land. Believers owning houses or sections were converting 'em to hard cash (...imagine the rejoicing among real estate agents and solicitors), dropping their big bag of roubles at the apostles' feet, and St. Peter and Co do a shareout "to each according to their needs".

It's danger time, kiddies.

It's not wrong to "provoke each other to love and good works". So although individual believers weren't to make a big production of their almsgiving, it was okay that the apostles let folk know there was a lot of generosity out there. (Maybe Luke shouldn't have singled out his mate Barnabas for special mention when he records this in Acts - it's arguable.)

But be aware that there's a social pressure to conform in such a setting. That pressure is distinct from the command of God to you. And if you can't live up to the social pressure, there's the temptation to fake it.

Mr. A and Mrs. S walked away from selling their section gazing into the 'normous bag of gold they'd been given. They were happy to help the poor believers, but they remembered an advert for a package tour. Travel by quinquireme of Nineveh to distant Ophir, style of thing.

They both wanted to go. Unitedly. But the pressure was on to give all. (Perhaps names were named. Good old Barnabas.)

They wanted the apostles to say good old A and S.

Please note, though. There was nothing wrong in wanting to hang on to some of the cash. Matter of fact, there'd have been nothing wrong in keeping the lot. Let's not go overboard on this.

So Ananias and Sapphira decided to work a swifty.

Tell lies.

To the Holy Spirit.

Okay, the rest of the story is high drama. Peter takes the part-payment and says the equivalent of "That's your lot even if this isn't". A word of knowledge. "While you had the land, it was yours. When you sold it, the money was yours. Why did you dream up this scheme? You're not lying to people, but to the Holy Spirit."

Ananias dies. They carry out his corpse and bury it.

Later, enter Sapphira. Maybe she noticed it was rather quiet, compared with the usual rowdiness of the believers. No matter. For now, notice the difference between the treatment her husband received and Peter's approach to her.

He asks if the land was sold for such-and-such a price. Hubby hadn't been asked; hubby had been accused just like that. Why give her the out when Mr. A never had that kind of chance?

Couple of reasons. One is that she's now a widow. Any pressure from her husband is now null and void. Hence the opportunity to put matters right. Second reason. Feminists mayn't like this, but scripture records women as having the capability of being deceived. Men don't get that concession. Why feminists get upset we may never know - George's view is that it discriminates against men. Whatever - it's the way God operates.

Anyhow, Sapphira blows it. So the brand-new widow goes through the same routine. Death.

So what?

Doesn't happen today. Or does it?

That's the whole point of the story. The reason God included it.

You see, anyone (with a minimum of practise) can lie to others. It works. But, where God's involved, it brings death.

Disobedience towards God causes problems. Grumbling at God causes problems. Lying to God causes death.

Maybe not physical death right there and then. But, as a minimum, everything just halts as far as progress with God is concerned. Because lying to God gives other believers the impression that, wow!, you are one spiritual guy. You are as holy as! And they have to try and live up to that whatever- it-is.

Which may be unattainable. Or unnecessary. And which you haven't even reached.

F'rinstance. Why d'you think we put ourselves down in our books? Make out we're somewhat thick, bumbling, learning-by- our-mistrakes (if we learn at all)?

Because we are.

SO (shout it from the hi-rise) ARE OTHERS.

And we don't want to kid you or make you think being one of God's kids needs super ability or anything.

Being a believer is EASY if you don't mind making plenty of mistakes, looking in the mirror and roaring with laughter at what you see, and realising that Dad loves humans more than he loves angels, so it's as is where is time.

But woe betide the person who pretends. They put great big ginormous difficulties in the path of others. They stop their own progress, there and then.

So what's with the saga of Mr. A and Mrs. S?

For one thing, it's an inverted way of saying get united with that spouse of yours if you want to go places. Don't miss that one. Maybe it'll take effort. Worth it, though. We're working at it, and when it clicks - wowee!

For another thing, be real. Don't worry if the apostles or Luke shouldn't have publicised Brother B. Or whatever the 20th century equivalent dumbness is in your religious area. Don't worry that other believers are s-o-o-o dedicated and unselfish. Maybe they are (maybe they aren't - the story is a warning that they could be telling whoppers). Just remember when the disciples pointed at Apo. John and asked Jesus: "What'll he do?" Jesus told them as far as they were concerned he might have to kick his heels on Planet Earth for a couple of thousand years; it was no business of theirs. Their responsibility was to hear God themselves. And obey.

We feel sorry for Mr. A and Mrs. S. They could've had their trip to Ophir. Better still, they could have kept all the cash. Or the land. Unless, later on, the King had asked for it personally.

As it was, late that evening, the two of them would have had an embarrassing interview with the Lord.

Pity, that. Let's learn. Before we have our own personal interview.

(In each new move of God, those men and women - not only the "big names" - who were active in the previous move can find that they have been left behind, living on their memories. It is always hard to adjust to what God is doing now.)

* * *

Remember when Moses gave us the job?

Not long out of Egypt, that was. Around Mount Sinai. We call it "Pentecost", nowadays.

Marvellous time - fire crashing down out of the sky. The Word of God ringing in our ears. The wonderful feeling to togetherness against the dangers of the wilderness.

And the miracles. Man, the miracles! Youngsters nowadays scarcely believe us when we tell them of the manna. And the quails.

Good days, those were. And Moses simply couldn't cope with the needs that people had. So somebody - his father-in-law, wasn't it? - had the brilliant idea of delegating his authority for ordinary folk to submit to.

Moses appointed these leaders - some over five families, or ten. Over fifty or a hundred. Even a thousand.

We felt really humbled when he gave us the position. And how those families hung on our every word. They'd never have made it through the wilderness if we hadn't been there to keep order, give instructions, settle disputes.

Those were good times. And God was with us all the way.

But now?

Moses, bless him, is dead. It's the end of an era. Well, Joshua said as much, didn't he? "You have never been this way before," he said when we entered the promised land. Said it in a significant tone of voice, much as if he anticipated a few radical changes.

Changes!

Once every family was settled under their own vine and under their own fig tree, we were out of a job. Just like that.

Can you imagine? With all the experience and - all right, I'll say it: wisdom - we'd gained in that move of God, suddenly we're nothing. For goodness' sake - after all we've done for Him!

What's wrong with the old ways, I want to know. But talk to people, they go on about relating to God direct... Makes me almost yearn for the wilderness, it does.

And nothing gets done properly any more. There are these fly-by-night upstarts that you hear about. Sampson, Gideon, Jephthah and others. Pop up from nowhere, upset a few folk, cause trouble with the authorities often enough, and then simply fade out again.

Folk can't depend on them like they could with us. For what it's worth, people need some mature man on hand that they can rely on.

Organisation and authority. As far as I'm concerned that was what got us through the wilderness. And it's what we need today, promised land or no promised land.

Nobody'll ever persuade me to think said back in those good old days will be good enough for me until the day I die.

Okay - leave the question dangling for a moment. Let's think around the whole business before we dream up some whiz- bang scheme for making a superchurch out of such diverse ingredients as Catholics and Baptists and Drop-outers. To name but a few.

Frankly, us two, we've had problems understanding Paul (what's new?) in 1 Cor.1,vv12-13. "Everyone is saying 'I'm of Paul' and 'I'm of Apollos' and 'I'm of Peter' and 'I'm of Christ'. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you - or were you baptised in the name of Paul?" Later (ch 3,vv3-6) he adds "While one says 'I'm of Paul' and another says 'I'm of Apollos' - you are carnal!"

Sure, everybody sheds crocodile tears over the denominational divisions 'twixt believers and piously longs for the day when their denominational headquarters do a merger. Maybe.

But that's not our problem with the quote from Paul. We've wondered why he lumped in the bloke who said "I'm of Christ" in his list of divisions. What's wrong with being "of Christ". It has to be a fair bit better than being a Baptist or AOG or whatever, surely?

Let's bamboozle you with a bit of Greek. It'll make it clear what Paul's getting at. In the Greek, the "I" in "I'm of Paul... Apollos... Christ" is emphatic. "I'm of Paul; you aren't", style of thing.

"I'm of Christ; you aren't".

That is evil.

Not just inaccurate. Not merely sin. It is EVIL.

All believers are "of Christ". Even the ones who claim to be denominational. Or Drop-outers. We should say "We ALL are of Christ".

And in an area, in a city, all ARE one.

Remember the prayer Jesus prayed? In John 17,vv20-23 he prays for every believer. Not just the apostles. Every believer. That includes us two specifically. You specifically. And all other believers. "That they all may be one as you, Father, are in me... that they may be one in us that the world may believe... that they may be one even as we are one... that they may be perfect in one."

You'd better take that seriously. You'd better believe that Jesus was praying in accordance with what he saw his Father doing. You'd better believe that prayer was answered at Pentecost.

And has been answered ever since.

But...

No buts.

All believers ARE one. All believers are part of the Body of Christ. Whether they like it or not; whether they admit it or not.

And the sooner we and you live in the acknowledgement of that answered prayer of Jesus and the will of the Father, the better.

But...

Who's a believer?

Once you talk about "we ARE one", everybody tries to wriggle. Find the boundaries. Bring the fences as close as possible.

A believer is a person who says he or she is a believer.

Ooh! That could include nasty people. People in error. Sects and cults and things.

Right.

Our unity is NOT on the basis of doctrine. (No, we're not talking compromise; hang in there.) Our unity is not on the basis of being born again.

Our unity is through belief in Jesus.

Try it. Tell people. Tell a Brethren or a JW. Accept them at face value. Don't you be the one the cause division.

And, sadly, you'll discover that people work hard to find reasons why they shouldn't fellowship with you.

Some (not only from the cults) simply want you to join their bunch. Or accept their line of teaching. Or...

We met a neat bunch of believers. Several families, all vigorous, interesting people. Exchanged letters, went to stay with them. Then they gave us a book.

"Tell us what you think of it." We read it. Interesting enough; we quite enjoyed it.

"The man is a prophet; that is God's word."

"Oh?" We didn't argue. Neither did we agree. We just weren't about to buy a whole package, that's all.

Click! Those families cut off, just like that.

Because they insisted on something additional to simply being believers as the basis of fellowship.

But...

Doesn't Paul say we shouldn't even eat with certain people?

First, though, examine your motives. Are you looking for an excuse to put up barriers? Don't! A drunkard is not a person who got drunk. A fornicator is not a person who committed fornication. Etc. These are terms for those who continue in these ways. Who are locked into these ways.

(And for heaven's sake, don't only get twitchy about the sex/alcohol areas. Covetousness is also popular among believers. Idolatry - the literal kind, involving images and syncretism - is alive and well in New Zealand Christian society. "Railing" - mindless abuse - and extortion exist.)

No big deal. Tell the person why you won't eat. And remember it only applies to believers, not "outsiders".

It doesn't apply to matters of doctrine. If you learn to fellowship, you create a situation where you can disagree, discuss, argue. What if the other bloke's beliefs include heresy? So what! If you received your correct doctrine by revelation you'll know that's how he needs to get his. If you've simply nutted it out... well, it mightn't be worth much. Just remember, Paul's little no-eating list didn't include "people who disagree with you".

Accept that all believers ARE one, and you have no problem with the "ascension ministries" of Ephesians 4. It would be a bit ridiculous to expect the Lord to supply each religious organisation in town with a bubble-packed ministry kit, comprising one each of apostle, prophet, evangelist and pastor/teacher (or pastor and teacher, depending on what your group teaches).

It also becomes difficult if organisations have watertight divisions to seal off their members from the others. Because if the "ministry gifts" are scattered evenly throughout the Body and not confined to "our" or "your" group - how will "we" or "you" ever know?

But...

Why bother to accept other believers as one with us?

Two reasons. A stick and a carrot.

One is that if we fail to discern the Body of Christ we eat and drink condemnation. And because of this, some have become sick and some have died.

Would you believe it could happen if you don't recognise that the prayer of the Lord has been answered?

The other reason is that the world will actually believe that Jesus was sent by God.

The world isn't looking for a superchurch. They had almost fifteen hundred years of more-or-less religious organsational unity prior to the Reformation. It didn't do much for outsiders. And the world could even accept our hair-splitting theological differences today if, at grass roots, believers actually made the effort to get on with each other.

Personally. On home ground.

Not waiting until faceless men in denominational headquarters give the okay. Not waiting until the next overseas evangelist sends his advance team to inspire us yet again. But personally.

Accepting the one-ness that the Lord Jesus prayed for. The one-ness that he has always had with his Father, and that we are supposed to enjoy.

There are some texts that folk don't so much quote at you as shout at you. Like political slogans - and with just about as much thought behind them. As if they held the final word on the matter.

And the grandaddy of them all...

Okay, we'd like to make a few points.

First - nowhere in the Bible are we forbidden to "set dates". Daniel did, with regard to the end of the captivity. In fact, scattered throughout Daniel's prophecy are some precise time-periods clearly intended by the Holy Spirit for us to use. The same applies in other parts of the Bible.

Second - yes, we are aware that some highly specific dates for the Rapture are being quoted. Because we believe we're nearing the end of the present age, we're not prepared to ridicule the dates or their proponents out of hand; however, nor do we endorse them. But we are seriously reviewing our life, our activities and our attitudes. The current grassroots expectancy of the Lord's return is too important to ignore.

Third - the verse speaks of the day and the hour. It doesn't say you can't know the year and the month. Are we splitting hairs - or is this an occasion when scripture means what it says?

Some scriptures are absolute, some are relative. "I am the way, the truth and the life" is absolute - it remains valid for eternity. "I go not up to the feast" is relative - it was only briefly a fact; soon after, Jesus went to the feast.

So, what about the "day and the hour" verse? In our opinion it is clearly relative. There is no doubt that at the time Jesus said the words of Mark 13,32 only his Father knew the day and the hour. Jesus didn't, humans didn't, angels didn't.

And there has to come a time when every being in the entire universe is aware - whether joyfully or despairingly - of the point in time of that day and hour.

The verse is not an eternal truth. It is limited in duration. Relative.

Let's take it a step further. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Lord Jesus is currently aware of the day and the hour - even that he has been since the resurrection or ascension. And that the angels are aware and preparing for the event and the time.

Then, what of Amos 3,7: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets".

We are not commenting whether the context of the "day and hour" verse relates to the Rapture or the return of the Messiah. It is sufficient to notice that throughout the gospels and the epistles there is the command to be alert for the return of the Lord, and the promise that those who are "of the day" will see the day approaching.

Our theological bias is this: we don't believe the Rapture will be an escape, a cop-out, to rescue a beleaguered Church on the brink of disaster. Rather will it be a triumphal flourish, a dramatic exclamation mark for those who have overcome. We suspect that it is possible that each individual saint who is to be caught up to meet the Lord will have a growing personal awareness that the time is drawing closer. After all - Elijah did; even down to the specific day.

But, oh dear! What if we were wrong! People have Set Dates before and been wrong, you know...

That's simply the occupational hazard of being a Christian. A believer is not someone who merely assents to certain doctrines. A believer is (...or should be...) someone eagerly looking forward to meeting her or his Lord face-to- face; someone dynamically involved with God on two levels: the mundane and the supernatural. And soon those two levels will merge.

Yes, there have been false starts before. Maybe there will again. Occupational hazard, like we said.

Meanwhile, amid all the busy-ness of the economic downturn and family problems and normal life, we need to keep one eye alert, one ear cocked, just in case the King gives advance warning.

Also meanwhile, it doesn't hurt to ask him what we should be doing. And what kind of people he wants us to be.

MINISTER: Let us pray. (Pause) Let us all pray.

MINISTER: Almighty and most merciful God, our loving heavenly Father. (Pause) Who hast said in thy Word that when we pray to Thee (Pause) we should not be as the hypocrites (He opens eyes, looks nervously right, left, then upwards; shuts them again) and pray in public to be heard of men...

MINISTER: Ah...persons. But that, when we pray, we should shut ourselves away. (He moves backwards in pulpit, reaching behind him; finds door-handle and opens it.)

MINISTER: And our Father who sees in secret (He begins to close the door) shall reward us...(door shuts with click - all that can be heard is a muffled mumble).

1st CHOIR MEMBER: Might get his prayer answered this time.

2nd CHOIR MEMBER: You reckon? Be a change, eh.

MINISTER: (Muffled) Mumble...mumble mumble. (There is a click as the cupboard door opens) Amen.

CONGREGATION: Amen.

MINISTER: (Walking out of cupboard to front of pulpit) Shall we further sing to God's praise from hymn number nine hundred and eighty three...

Dear Lord,

Thank You for Your letter of the 3rd Revelation, vv14-22. We are pleased to hear from You and hope You are keeping well.

With respect, we - as the church to whom You have written - would like to clarify some of the points You make. That is, if Your remarks are to be taken literally, and not as a figurative, spiritual stimulus to Your humble and obedient servants - i.e. ourselves.

We really appreciate Your saying: "I know your works". That's encouraging. The ministers and elders (in fact, all the members) put in long hours - we have a very full programme, and seldom get a word of thanks. And, yes, we pride ourselves on being "lukewarm". (Though perhaps You could have chosen a better word? Temperate, maybe?) Balance, avoiding extremism is our principle. You won't find any fanatics among us!

Which is why we are upset at the - shall we say? - criticism implied when You write: "I would that you were hot or cold". Now, Lord, we've lost a great number of members lately. Some have quit and seem to be doing absolutely nothing for You. Surely You don't prefer their coldness. And some who left us have gone totally overboard. Extremists. "Hot", as You call them. We certainly have nothing in common with them.

Yes, Lord, You are absolutely right ("Thou who knowest all things", as one of our deacons always prays, Sunday after Sunday) when You quote us as saying: "We are rich and increased with goods". We'll attach a copy of our assets valuation for insurance purposes; it'll give You an idea of how successful we've been.

But then, You write something about our being: "Wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked". One of our elders (no names, because "All are equal in Your sight" of course - but he studied theology at college) admits that technically we are wretched, etc, etc. "Sinners", as the saying goes. But too much negative thinking does a lot of harm. We've had an overseas ministry telling us that what people say actually happens in their lives. So we prefer to speak positively, and - again with respect, Lord - we rather wish You did the same.

So how can we interpret Your: "I counsel you to buy of Me gold tried in the fire"? Plus the bit about white raiment and eyesalve.

The majority vote (...the "mind of the Spirit" we call it) at our business meeting was for taking Your words as a hint to move into buying stocks and shares. Better than term deposit at the bank, probably. Then we'll make the effort to be really well dressed - God's people must be a good advertisement for You, mustn't they? And if "eyesalve" is a prophetic word to upgrade our video equipment, then You'll find us to be obedient servants, Lord.

Oh, You say "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous, therefore, and repent". We wonder if that isn't slightly, well, Old Testament? The rebuking and chastening business, that is. As for repenting, don't You worry! We always teach on repentance - and submission and covering - before any major fund-raising campaign.

Another point, Lord. Those are beautiful words - You know, the verse that starts: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock..." (Well, of course You know them; You wrote them!) We always quote them to the unsaved at our Outreach Meetings. So we - ever so slightly, Lord, of course - take exception to Your saying them to us. To the church.

It all sounds as if You are outside and we've got the door shut on You! Of course that's silly. Most of us invited You into our hearts when we were teenagers. Every Sunday morning we ask You to come and bless us. And whenever one of our committees organises a special programme, we commend it to You in prayer. So we could almost quote back at You those words You said somebody once prayed: "Lord, we thank You that we are not as other men".

One final thing. You mention that people who "overcome" get to sit with You on Your throne. That's a nice spiritual concept, whatever it means. But it just smacks of works, Lord. You know? And favouritism. As we always say: "God has no favourites!"

Well, once again from all of us here who meet in this lovely building dedicated to Your glory, thank You for writing.

Yours sincerely,

The Church of Laodicea.