Reflections On A Media Discussion
24 Nov 2021
The failed terrorist attempt on a hospital in Liverpool on Remembrance Sunday led to a week of discussion in the media about the credibility of Christian outreach to asylum seekers. The man who planned to commit the atrocity was baptised a number of years earlier.
It was very easy to get annoyed about the reporting - after all, it was no surprise to anyone when a few days later it was revealed that the failed bomber had not been attending a church for years. However, instead of getting angry about it, I began to reflect on what that event and the subsequent discussion in the media could teach us as Christians.
First, it showed the need for church discipline. This is often a topic we don’t like to think about. But there was a reason why the reformers often described it as one of the marks of a true church. After all, without clear markers showing who truly belongs to the church or not we soon run into problems.
The media was right in stressing the importance of baptism. Baptism does mark you out in belonging to the visible church. However, as Jesus makes clear (in Matthew 28:16-20) discipleship must accompany baptism. And it if a disciple is clearly and unrepentantly walking away from Christ, the church must do all she can to draw her back - with the most serious step being to deny them fellowship and the Lords table. This is done with tears, and with the hope and prayer that the Lord would use that to draw them back to him.
Obviously I can’t comment on the specifics of the situation in Liverpool, but you would imagine that such an individual would not get to such a point in their life without a move away from the church. The answer to the media when they report that such a man was a Christian convert should be “Yes, he was baptised, but he is now excommunicated due to his lack of repentance - at the time of the bombing he wasn’t one of us.” That may not have shut down the story in the media (they will always find a way to discredit the church), but it does then mean the church will have done all they can for the individual, and to uphold the glory and reputation of the Lord.
Second, it proved to me that we need to avoid engaging with issues in society in the terms set by those who want to frame them as a “culture war”. It can be very tempting to do that though - to cheer on politicians and commentators who appear to be saying the things we agree with, and opposing those we disagree with. But we must be very cautious. Christ cannot be easily put on one side of the political divide, and there can be (and there is) error on all sides of the discussions. Jesus’ kingdom is a third and different way. Jesus opposed both the Pharisees and the “gentile sinners” of his day.
It was interesting that the government were very quick to aim their criticism at the church last week to deflect the fact that it was their immigration policy which was under question. After all, no church has the power to grant asylum, that is a government decision! Governments of all positions will be happy to get support from Christians if it suits them - but will be quick to turn their fire on us if it suits them.
The third challenge is about the nature of our evangelism. It is great that in this country we have opportunities to share the gospel with people from all nations. But we must ask “do we have credibility when we say that to follow Jesus is to take up our cross?” That is - Jesus says “come and die”. For many coming to Christ, this may be a literal reality, if they do have to return to the countries of their birth. The cost of following Christ is very real for them.
As we pray for them, and share the gospel with them, this question comes back to us. Do we follow a Christ who says that to us? Are we prepared to suffer? What has the cost been for us? Or have we domesticated the gospel we are passing on - and in so doing, we are calling others to a path we are not prepared to walk ourselves?
It’s very easy to get annoyed with news stories, but often they raise very serious questions that we must not avoid!