[display_podcast]I need to lay my cards on the table right at the outset. As far as I know I have never been persecuted for being a Christian. Certainly there have been occasions where ‘friends’ have made fun of me. Undoubtedly there have been times when my Christian faith has caused me to be excluded from some activity or opportunity. But persecuted? Not yet.
And that, frankly, is quite remarkable. The Christian heritage that we have enjoyed in Britain for centuries has kept the vast majority of us shielded from the truth which most of the rest of the world knows all too well. The persecution of Christians is a normal state of affairs.
I say all this because there is an increasingly realisation that the privileges that we have enjoyed for so long are beginning to come to an end. Even in this country there have been recent occasions where Christians have lost their jobs simply for living out their Christian convictions. There have even been those arrested and prosecuted for doing what you and I believe the Bible commands us to do.
We know this because the Christian newspapers – and occasionally even secular ones – have reported those stories. So remember this: here, now, persecution makes the news. That’s worth repeating: here, now, persecution makes the news. But in most of history, in most parts of the world, persecution is a normal, everyday occurrence that is no more newsworthy than a minor parking accident or a mild illness.
The Church and the World
It is remarkable that most of us are indignant when a little opposition comes our way. We mutter about our civil liberties and our human rights. We talk about living in a Christian country, and claim that we shouldn’t be treated like this. But brothers and sisters in Christ, persecution is normal! Persecution is to be expected! It is lack of persecution that should shock us, not the reverse.
But if persecution is normal, why have the majority of us never really suffered persecution at all? Of course, it is partly down to the grace of God. We should be extremely thankful to God that the world around us is as tolerant as it currently is. But for many of us, it is probably also down to our weakness and failure to live up to the standards that the Bible sets for us.
American pastor Kent Hughes has said this:
By far the greatest reason there is so little persecution is that the church has become like the world. If you want to get along, the formula is simple. Approve of the world’s morals and ethics—at least outwardly. Live like the world lives. Laugh at its humor. Immerse yourself in its entertainment. Smile benignly when God is mocked. Act as if all religions converge on the same road. Don’t mention hell. Draw no moral judgments. Take no stand on the moral/political issues. Above all, do not share your faith. Follow this formula and it will be smooth sailing. But the fact is, the church must be persecuted or it is no church at all.
For years we’ve been shielded from the truth because the world has persuaded us – or perhaps we have persuaded ourselves – that there is not that much difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. And, while most of our neighbours and friends were relatively moral, believed in God, came to church at Christmas and admired some of the truths in the Bible, we allowed that myth to persist.
Yet the simple truth is that regardless of behaviour, there is a great gulf that separates the church from the world. There are differences between men and women, between young and old, between black and white, and between rich and poor. But there is no greater difference than that between the Christian and the non-Christian.
Respectable Sins
Now, as our nation moves ever further from its Christian heritage and Victorian morality, we’re starting to see the chasm between the church and the world. For several generations we have been allowed the luxury of quietly tolerating ‘respectable sins’. But under God, it appears that our nation is beginning to remove that sinful luxury from us. It seems as though God is reminding us that we have tolerated too much for too long. It seems as though God is saying that it’s time we took a stand.
And if, for God’s sake, we take a stand, we must do all that lies within us to avoid hypocrisy. It is easy to decry the sin in others, it is far harder to deal with the sin in ourselves. We should remember that our persecuted brothers and sisters all around the world are persecuted not because they condemn others, but because they live out the gospel themselves.
Biblically, taking a stand for the Gospel does not simply mean marching, waving banners and shouting slogans. It does not just mean writing to the newspaper or to your MP. But it does mean living holy lives. As Peter puts it (1 Peter 2:12), “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.”
And just as importantly, it does mean preaching the gospel. Preaching the gospel will always expose sin. But it will never only expose sin. Preaching the gospel means not only bringing men down, but lifting Christ up.
It is this, perhaps, that will awaken us to the realities of persecution.
This is is the first part of an article which will be published in the January 2008 edition of the Evangelical Magazine.
Articles in this series:
- Destined for persecution <-- This article
- Destined for persecution (part 2)


#1 by wigrd on 13 December, 2008 - 3:36 pm
Quote
I am quite sure that Christians have done more than their fair share of persecuting. Even during the first two hundred years of the Common Era it remains a matter of fact, that it was the Jews who suffered extreme persecution. The period has been referred to as The First Holocaust (and we all know about the second). Wild estimates reckon two million Jews were crucified and although this seems highly unlikely, Josephus does say that so many crosses were made that wood became scarce. After all think what was lost!(Though oddly no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in the NT)I’m not sure either how the Crusades fit with your thesis, not to mention the conquest of South America and the Inquisition. The part played by the churches, including evangelical churches, in South African politics in the late 20th C was obscene; but no worse than many of the churches of the Evangelical right in the battle for Civil Rights in the Southern States. Whilst it was certainly, but not exclusively, evangelical Christians who paved the way for the emancipation of slaves, Christianity and slavery lived happily side by side for 150 years. An industry excused in Parliament by quoting Biblical texts!
If you are really interested Hyam Maccoby’s ‘A Pariah People – An Anthropology of Anti-semitism’ is a more-than-interesting read as is ‘The Sacred Executioner – Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt’ Martin Goodman’s ‘Rome and Jerusalem’ (2006) is a wonderful history. For a Christian perspective you might glance at Gerd Theissen’s ‘A Theory of Primitive Christian ReligionAny history book will confirm the rest. Throughout history, Christians, particularly Roman Catholics have played the persecution card. For the sake of all those who suffer, we must try very hard not to feel sorry for ourselves.
#2 by Darc Binegar on 27 June, 2009 - 5:30 pm
Quote
As much as I apprieciate the author’s article “Destined for Persecution” I have misgivings regarding the comments left re: the said article and this is why. But first let me say this about the subject of the article for it is a topic I have often pondered. The only reason I see that the Church has not seen persecution is due to compromise, as is pointed out in the second article on this topic.
Now to the issue of the comments made to this article, particularly those at the end, the person says: “Throughout history, Christians, particularly Roman Catholics have played the persecution card. For the sake of all those who suffer, we must try very hard not to feel sorry for ourselves.”
Albeit this person makes factual points regarding history it in no way should reflect upon the true Church of the Christ. To say these were brothers and sisters in Christ that committed these high crimes is repulsive. A truly regenerate follower of Christ would not commit these sins that make a mockery of their God and King. Let’s make no mistake either in saying the Catholic religion is Christian. They wandered from the Truth right from the start and anyone who is familiar with Protestant history knows they are children of the Devil.
Jesus’ teachings on non-resistence are very clear in Matthew 5 and Luke 6, etc. and this is one of the true marks of a Christian. The line seperating Christians and the world is beginning to reappear in the former United States of America as the world economy implodes. A seperating of the wheat and chaff is beginning to happen and with it the rise of persecution will follow. Don’t be deceived, the way of the Cross is the straight and narrow way, which is the hard and difficult way that leads to suffering, that draws us closer to the Master and our Friend Jesus.
#3 by wigrd on 28 June, 2009 - 5:17 pm
Quote
Responding to Darc Bindgar
I am not at all sure what your first paragraph means and the last one is also confusing. However, to the middle bits:
Don’t you think it is precisely because groups believed they WERE ‘the True church of the Christ’ (as you put it) that they were able to do as they did?
Were the Counter-Reformationists convinced they were doing God’s work? If not, why do you think they did what they did?
Were the Evangelicals (Hagee among them) who supported segregation in Alabama and Mississippi, The Orange Free State or the Transvaal sincere? Were they morally right? There are evangelicals in South Africa today who because of the ending of apartheid think we are in ‘tribulation times’! Perhaps you could drop them a line. (You seem to believe those times to be imminent if not quite yet; see Millerites). I wonder whether they would be ‘wheat or chaff’?
How is something less repulsive if committed by a non-believer? What utter nonsense. You surely cannot mean this! Or are you suggesting that ‘true’ believers (whatever THEY might be!) cannot do such things? This is clearly just as daft. It denies the facts. Lying behind the idea is a claim that ‘true believers’ are more moral than non-believers. This is not sustainable. At best, it would seem not to be the case and at worst it is a dangerous assumption. Were the tele-evangelists (Robertson et al., take your pick there are rather a lot of them!) not guilty of awful crimes and sins, or not true Christians?
What on Earth is (was?) ‘…the former United States of America’? Whatever it is (was?) do you think Obama should be told about it?
You make yourself very clear about Roman Catholics. You don’t like them very much do you? You sound rather like the Christian Taliban. There is certainly a lot of hate there, but least you don’t discriminate (or ‘compromise’ if you prefer!). you loathe all equally; the young, the old, the sick and the pitiful, the poor in spirit, those that mourn, the meek, the peacemakers those that are persecuted. You lump them together with equal disgust. If they are Roman Catholics they are ‘children of the Devil’.
What medieval obscenity is this?
Where do you get them from? Seeing Augustine and Aquinas, James Cagney and Ann Bancroft, Mother Theresa and Marie Curie (as well as my old mate Jim from down the road ) as sons and daughters of the Devil, sounds more than a bit rum to me.
However, tell me what you think about Millerites, Muggletonians, Welsh Jumpers, Southcottians or for that matter Anglo-Catholics. (In in fact especially Anglo-Catholics) Are they just as diabolical as Roman Catholics or might they just be Christians?
What about liberal Christians? Are they really like Atheists?
Mark seems to think that there ARE non-New-Testament Christians. I have asked if someone could enlighten me here but so far no-one has. Any ideas?
Less pondering more careful thinking called for.
#4 by Robert on 29 June, 2009 - 1:31 pm
Quote
Quote:
Wouldn’t this be a “pot-calling-the-kettle-black-situation”?
If I may comment; I believe what the other poster was trying to convey is that regenerate Christians sin…yes…and sometimes horrifying sins…but “continued systematic horrifying sin such as the Crusades” is not the characteristic of a true regenerated believer”
I’m trying to picture my Pastor toting a flame thrower and wooden cross; with the intention burning someone who disagrees with this theology like a Roman Candle…
I don’t think so…
If I misunderstood, correct me.
#5 by wigrd on 29 June, 2009 - 4:58 pm
Quote
Thanks for your reply Robert.
No I think you do understand. I think you just disagree, and that’s OK. If we all agree there is no discussion. We are reduced to what I have called spray-can theology and using the word AWESOME a lot! Check the blog.
I’m sure that both you and your pastor are splendid fellows.
Rather more seriously no, I do not think criticising an opinion is the same as condemning or insulting whole sections of society because they are black, Jewish, fat or Roman Catholic. Neither do you. I happen to think that not criticising, not speaking up for what we think just, right and good, not condemning injustice and stupidity leads to tyranny. Free speech is vital if we are to have a civilised society.
Put rather grandly you make a category mistake. Kettle calling pot? Not guilty! I am also trying hard to avoid ‘yah boo’argument.
Your last paragraph doesn’t quite make sense. How can a Roman Candle (why capitals?) disagree with anyone including your Pastor? It does however, if I understand it even slightly, remind me of the horror of the Klan. Plenty of Pastors did indeed bring together images of wooden crosses and flames and burning bodies, though many more I’m sure opposed such obscenities.
Only recently Hagee said Katrina was sent by God as punishment for the sin of New Orleans. He has retracted so that’s all right then! The people can now rest easy!
In the interests of fairness, I am simply making the point that people of any religious persuasion, including Christians, are morally no better and no worse than any other group. Why should we expect pastors to be any better than window cleaners, deck-chair attendants, or bus-conductors?
As for history, it remains another country. It is a matter of fact, that as the monarchy changed from Catholic to Protestant and back again (and again) in England, the two sides took turns in burning ‘heretics’. I think you will know of the New England witch trials. It is difficult to know what people are thinking or what their motives are, but we can sometimes get some indication by looking at some primary sources. Try looking up Bernard of Clairvaux on ‘Loving God’ and the Children’s Crusade. What can we make of Savanorola? (G K Chesterton – a Roman Catholic!- wrote a good essay on him).
What are we to make of Luther’s virulent and extreme ant-Semitism.(As bad as anything Hitler, Heydrich and the Third Reich came up with).
These are hard questions with no knock-down answers
You don’t really think Christians are morally superior to anyone else do you? You can’t possibly can you? It seems so…well..unchristian! After all “The thing I would, I do not…” and Paul does seem to endorse slavery!
Finally, a question I have asked before and received no answer. Is following a code, even a Divine code, anything at all to do with morality? Isn’t it simply obedience? Isn’t morality much more complicated than this? What happens when the tenets of the code clash?
Jesus thought so. He said so time and time and time again!
#6 by Robert on 29 June, 2009 - 5:44 pm
Quote
Wigrd,
my point was that I thought that it was a valid point that the poster said that those who spend their time continuously burning thousands who disagree probably aren’t regenerated Christ followers.
is that clear enough?
My “pot and kettle” comment was directed at your comments that this person was being uncharitable toward Catholics and you labeled him “Christian Taliban.”
I wasn’t addressing what the Catholic church did…just your observation that he was being uncharitable, and by using an Ad Hominem, you were doing the same; hence, “pot and kettle”
From this thread and others it seems that you have a hard time following even the simplest of statements.
#7 by wigrd on 29 June, 2009 - 6:49 pm
Quote
You sound more than a little angry Robert.
Uncharitable towards Catholic theology! I think I am often that. Just don’t get me started! I think it is however wrong to ‘blanket’people as children of the Devil. Uncharitable is not the word I would use! I thought the attack disgusting, repulsive and sickening. I tried to say why. I don’t care who made it.
Your final sentence is simply mud-slinging. The ‘yah boo’ sort of debate I was at pains to avoid. I tried to address the substance of the argument and produce evidence against the claim. You say I failed. You end by calling me stupid and accuse me of attacking the person and not the argument! Now, what was that bit of Latin…?
I expected more. I did try to ask some constructive questions, pose some difficulties and looked forward to some interesting responses.
Very disappointing.
#8 by Darc Binegar on 29 June, 2009 - 7:00 pm
Quote
Responding to wigrd:
And thanks to Robert for his clarification because he is spot on.
wigrd I mean no offence. It seems you wander considerably off topic. I underscore IT SEEMS. Meaning it appears to me that you’ve wandered off the topic of “Persecution” and “Respectable Sins” which is what I was referring to.
Now, I believe Robert has sufficiently clarified what I meant regarding “Sins” and so therefore I do not believe anything more needs be said. This also includes your endless queries along the matter. You can site as many examples as you wish, whether it be Hagee or Mother Theresa, but Jesus said “you shall know them by their fruit.” and therefore I question someone being Christian when their behaviors speak otherwise, like those who perpetrated the Crusades, i.e., the Catholics. It also goes beyond behaviors, even to what a person believes, that determines whether they are Christian or not. For example, the Catholics pronounce one “being saved” upon sprinkling a baby with water by a priest. This is nowhere to be found in all of Scripture nor are their teachings/dogmas on Church membership, praying to Mary, praying to the saints, Transubstantiation, praying the Rosary, etc., and yet they teach them as necessary for Salvation. These are the Roman Catholic beliefs and gospel. So, you might have a Mother Theresa type person who does alot of good things outwardly but believes she must go through Mary to receive salvation or practices praying endlessly the Rosary, believing she must to be saved but is in error according to the Word and will still end up being damned. Does this make sense? It probably won’t if you’re not familiar with their “gospel” and how it differs from the crystal-clear Gospel of turning from sin and the ways of the world and trusting in Jesus completely and obediently as Christ himself taught. This and this alone.
Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out many demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Jesus is saying there will be alot of people on Judgment Day who believe they were Christian, who do alot of religious things but will be damned. In other words it’s possible to be deceived, thinking you’re saved and be on the road to Hell according to Jesus.
wigrd, It’s not that I don’t like Catholics. It’s their religion that is anti-Christ and therefore I hate, because it is anti-Christ. This does not say that I believe all Catholics will be damned or aren’t saved, because I think it’s possible that there may be some that are, but who are trapped within the Catholic religion.
I reject your assertion that I “loathe all equally; the young, the old, the sick and the pitiful, the poor in spirit, those that mourn, the meek, the peacemakers those that are persecuted. You lump them together with equal disgust. If they are Roman Catholics they are ‘children of the Devil’.”. wigrd I don’t hate anyone. What I do hate is one’s behaviors (sin) and this includes all religious sin that mocks God, His Son and His Word! Now get this wigrd…I said I reject your assertion, NOT YOU. OK? Please try and not make as many assumptions as you do.
As far as what Mark means regarding there being “non-New-Testament Christians”, as you say he says, I do not know what he’s reffering to. I would be interested to know though.
I stand upon the Word and in Christ alone.
#9 by Robert on 29 June, 2009 - 7:07 pm
Quote
Wigrd,
As in the last time I interacted with you it was fruitless, a waste of time, and a lesson in Ad Hominem, red-herrings, and rabbit trails…
I’m signing off.
#10 by Robert on 29 June, 2009 - 7:08 pm
Quote
Wigrd,
Not angry, frustrated that you cannot even follow a simple conversation.
Have a good day…until next time…