Can justice be done in a society that no longer accepts responsibility for its wrongdoing?

In a week that has seen the end of the 28-year campaign for justice on behalf of the 95 football fans who lost their lives at the Hillsborough disaster, it’s a good time to reflect on the issues of blame when something goes wrong.

Back in the 1980s and 90s when I was minister of a church in London, I used to exchange churches (and our house and car) for a month in the summer with the minister of a church in the USA. I would just preach once on a Sunday morning and in return we would have a holiday in California or Vermont or some other State. One year we took a church in the Bronx where there was a murder almost every day, which made us happy to get back to the East End of London where, at least, we understood the culture!

One of the things that surprised us was that Americans went to law over the slightest dispute. One of the church members in Los Angeles was sued by a delivery man who tripped on the front garden path which he claimed was uneven. Law firms would advertise to represent anyone who had an accident on a ‘no-win-no-fee’ basis, which encouraged people to sue their neighbours on the slightest pretext.

That ‘blame game’ culture has spread to Britain where law firms specialise in getting compensation for victims of road accidents – fake or genuine – with whiplash being the favourite complaint. It is because of the huge increase in such insurance claims that we all have to pay such high premiums. The Government is preparing legislation to try to deal with the blame game culture that is spreading in Britain.

Change in British Character

Is it my imagination, or has there been a fundamental change in the British character in recent years? We used to be known as a stoic nation. People coped with adversity and accepted personal responsibility when things went wrong. Nowadays when anything goes wrong we look round to see who we can blame! We certainly don’t accept any personal responsibility. If we have an accident our car insurance tells us never to say ‘sorry’, even if we know we were to blame. We must never admit we made a mistake!

American blame culture has spread to Britain and changed our national character.

It is this kind of culture that lies behind the saga that has followed the Hillsborough tragedy. If the policeman in charge of crowd control had immediately admitted that his decision to open the gate to relieve the crowd pressure outside the ground had caused the pressure inside the ground, we would never have had this 28-year enquiry. It would appear that he made an error of judgment, but he is now being charged with manslaughter, which will require proof that he deliberately sent 95 people into mortal danger.

Even if he is sent to jail, it will not bring the dead back to life, but will it give satisfaction to those who have lost loved ones? Is this really what they want – just to be able to blame someone and punish them for their human error of judgment? Of course, there were lies and ‘cover ups’ involved in this particular incident which have complicated the whole tragic affair. And the relatives of the dead are perfectly justified in demanding the truth and punishment of those who lied.

From Hillsborough to Grenfell

My concern about ‘the blame game culture’ is that it is going to be with us for a long time to come in settling the latest tragedy, the Grenfell Tower inferno. We are now learning that the heat inside the building was so great that those who lost their lives will never be found so that their relatives can have the satisfaction of burying them.

This is tragic for those who are grieving the loss of loved ones. There are bound to be calls for the punishment of those who were responsible for the construction and maintenance of the building, which only had one staircase. There was no emergency lighting on the night of the fire and the fire appliances did not have the capability of reaching the top floors to rescue those trapped.

There are so many things wrong with this terrible tragedy – and so many who could in some way be held responsible for it - that the enquiry now starting is likely to last a long time and be highly complex. But in calling for injustice to be exposed and those responsible to be held to account, we also need to temper the righteous public anger that is being widely expressed – lest justice be lost to vengeance and public order be lost to anarchy.

We need to temper the righteous public anger that is being expressed, lest justice be lost to vengeance.

There is a difference between seeking justice and simply trying to deal with deep anger and sorrow by finding someone to blame; but that is what is happening as the ‘blame game culture’ spreads.

Taking Responsibility

In Britain, our biblically-based personal and corporate values used to put God first, ‘others’ second and ‘self’ last. In our modern era, however, we have dropped God and reversed ‘others’ and ‘self’. We never admit to personal error. It’s always someone else’s fault when things go wrong.

Is it because we are so insecure that we cannot admit any personal failings? Do we lack the self-confidence to be able to say “Sorry, I messed up”? It takes what Christians know as ‘grace’ (loving-kindness and favour we do not deserve) to be able to deal with issues where we know that we’ve made a mistake, or done something wrong.

The reason that Christians can handle these things better than non-Christians is due to our relationship with God, whom we know is infinitely better than we are, which makes us humble in his presence. Additionally, we know that God is a loving Father who created each of us in our mother’s womb and knows us better than anyone else. He knows our weaknesses as well as our strengths and he loves us despite our failings.

It takes what Christians know as ‘grace’ to be able to deal with issues where we know that we’ve made a mistake, or done something wrong.

It is his grace that covers our wrongdoing. He holds us accountable for our actions but, when we confess wrongdoing, God is always willing to forgive us and to restore us to right relationships with himself and those whom we have offended.

Life-Changing Grace

This is basic Christian teaching – but it is what is lacking in our society today and what is at the root of the ‘blame game’ which is so damaging to individuals and to the whole community. It would be life-changing if we could each exercise grace and so reverse this culture that destroys our relationships.

We can begin by saying ‘sorry’ silently to God next time we make a mistake. He will then give us the courage and strength to say ‘sorry’ to others. Psalm 51 is our guide – verse 12 says “Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.”

Psalm 51

Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.

For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight;
so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge.
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity.

Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.

Then I will teach transgressors your ways, so that sinners will turn back to you.
Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God, you who are God my Saviour,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.

Open my lips, Lord, and my mouth will declare your praise.
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise.

May it please you to prosper Zion, to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous, in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

Ian Farley reviews ‘Leaven: The Hidden Power of Culture in the Church’ by David Brown (2016, RoperPenberthy).

Retired naval captain David Brown has written an alternative book to the many in the market which tell the Church, both members and ministers, what new things they ought to be doing to see their congregations grow. Of these kinds of books there is no end.

This book, however, approaches affairs from the other direction, taking the New Testament injunction to ‘throw out the old leaven’ seriously. Indeed, not to do so will leave whatever else you might do subject to corruption from the bad stuff still within.

Church in Distress

This is not a book which goes on to talk about our individual failings, as might be expected: ‘If only I were a better Christian then the Church would be a better Church’. Brown moves in bigger (and one might say, murkier) waters, outlining what he calls the “institutional distress” of the Church. He argues that the Church has allowed the culture of the world to infiltrate herself.

Particularly, he identifies four major cultural intruders: controlling power, the enchantment of historic custom, individualism and dogmatism. He outlines these in some detail in the first part of the book and argues that they all destroy relationships and are all variants of lovelessness.

The Church has allowed the culture of the world to infiltrate herself.

By contrast, of course, Jesus built the Kingdom with a focus on relationships and was personally sustained by his close intimacy with his Father, which led in his own life to an attentive, habitual discipleship.

Anglican Perspective

Brown then goes on to suggest what should be thrown out. Here readers need to be aware that, although in the advertising blurb it says this book is for all churches, Brown is an Anglican (and 12 years a lay assistant to a Bishop) and this immediately flavours his response.

Reader responses to this part of the book will, likewise, be shaped by their own denominational preference (for example, some nonconformists will no doubt rejoice over his castigation of the current role of bishops).

Most of Brown’s suggestions, however, are rightly transferable across denominations and, if heeded, would revolutionise the Church. In the example above, for instance, even churches which don't have bishops should pay careful attention to what Brown argues as he identifies what proper, biblical ministry roles and pastoral care should look like, regardless of church structure.

Most of Brown’s suggestions are transferable across denominations and, if heeded, would revolutionise the Church.

Removing the Vestiges of Pomp

The author makes deft judgments which should cause the reader to shout "hurrah, hurrah", especially in his analysis that old temple symbolism must be replaced by the teaching of the New Testament. This would necessitate the removal of all vestiges of pomp in any church and the notion of clerical Eucharistic presidency.

There are endless other suggestions that make this book a fascinating read for any Christian concerned about the cultural health of the Church. The depressing thing is that those who are in power will probably not be readers. This is depressing because, as Brown himself argues, "there is little point in adjusting my car's clutch whilst ignoring its corroded chassis. The time for ecclesiastical spanner work has passed." (p27).

Leaven (254pp) is available from the publisher for £12.99.

David Bivin considers Jesus’s background in the first of a two-part study.

It is rather surprising to discover how many Christians are not aware that Jesus is Jewish. In Israel, for example, there are entire communities of people – Christian, non-Jewish people - who do not believe that Jesus is Jewish.

A friend of mine was attending an Ulpan (a Hebrew language school) in Jerusalem. At one point in a conversation with a young Christian woman from Bethlehem who was also learning Hebrew, my friend said: “Well, you know Jesus was Jewish after all,” to which the woman replied, “He wasn't Jewish.” So my friend countered, “Well, go and ask your priest and see what he says.” She did not ask her priest, but went home and asked her parents. Her father said “Yes, she's right. He was Jewish.” But her mother said “No, he wasn't Jewish,” so it turned out to be a tie!

We might be very surprised to learn how many Christians have never really grasped the fact that Jesus was Jewish, not only in Israel but in Europe, Britain and in the United States. Christians still have difficulty in believing that Jesus was Jewish. So perhaps we have to say a few words about Jesus's Jewishness, even if it means stating the obvious.

It is rather surprising to discover how many Christians are not aware that Jesus is Jewish.  

Jesus’s Family

It is not hard to find evidence in the New Testament for Jesus's Jewishness. For example, his genealogy is clearly Jewish. In the gospels of Matthew and Luke, his lineage is traced back to the patriarchs in typical Jewish fashion.

Jesus's family was also completely Jewish. Joseph, the name of his earthly, supposed father, was the second most common name of the period for Jewish men, and his mother's name, Mary, was the most popular name for Jewish women.

Inscriptions dating from the 1^st Century indicate that the name Yeshua, Jesus, was itself the fifth most common Jewish man's name after Simeon, Joseph, Judah and John.

All of his known relatives were Jewish, namely Elizabeth (a relative of Mary's), her husband Zechariah the priest, and their son John the Baptist, as well, of course, as Jesus' own brothers, James, Joseph, Simeon and Judah (Matt 13:55).

Torah-Observant Parents

The gospels document the fact that Jesus and his family were observant Jews. Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day and, as is still the Jewish custom for male children, at his circumcision ceremony he was formally given his name (Luke 2:21).

His parents also performed two other Jewish ceremonies in Jerusalem during that time. The first of them was the pidyon ha-ben (the redemption of the first born), specified in Numbers 18:15-16 - which Joseph symbolically performed on Jesus' thirty-first day, by giving five silver coins to a priest.

The name Yeshua, Jesus, was the fifth most common Jewish man's name of its day.

The second took place on the forty-first day after Jesus's birth, when Mary performed the ceremony for her purification by bringing two offerings to the temple (Lev 12:8). The offering by Mary of two birds rather than a lamb would indicate that they were not a wealthy family (Luke 2:24).

Jesus’s parents, we are told, went up to Jerusalem every year to observe the Feast of Passover (Luke 2:41). This devotion is exemplary and unusual, because most people living outside Jerusalem (as they did) made a pilgrimage to the Temple only a few times in their lives, and some only once. Making such a pilgrimage was a major expense for people who had to pay for the cost of the journey, for the stay in Jerusalem, and for the sacrifices offered in the Temple during the festival.

Although the biblical commandment of Deuteronomy 16:16 states, “Three times a year all your men must appear before the Lord your God at the place he will choose; at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles”, it was not interpreted literally by the rabbis of Jesus's time. Pilgrimage was encouraged by them but not made mandatory.

The fact that Jesus's parents went all the way to Jerusalem every year shows how obedient they were to the Torah of Moses. The evidence in the gospels indicates that Jesus was no less observant than his parents and that he went up regularly to Jerusalem for the Feasts (John 7:10, 12:12). It was while he was in Jerusalem for Passover that he was arrested.

Jesus's parents went all the way to Jerusalem every year, showing their obedience to the Torah of Moses.

Jesus the Rabbi

How did Jesus appear to the people of his time? How differently did they see him from the many other teachers (rabbis) who went around Judea and Galilee with their bands of disciples?
By the time Jesus began his public ministry he had received not only the thorough religious training typical of the average Jewish man of his day, but had probably spent years studying with one of the outstanding rabbis in the Galilee.

We cannot at this point detail that preparation, of which we know a great deal from rabbinic sources, but we know that Jesus, who did not begin his ministry until a rather mature age, appeared on the scene as a respected teacher or rabbi.

To understand the significance of the title 'rabbi', as applied to Jesus, one must first grasp the significance of a rabbi of the 1^st Century and how he functioned in that society.

The term ‘rabbi’ is derived from the Hebrew word rav which in biblical Hebrew means 'great.' Originally it was not used as a title or as a form of address. By Jesus's time, however, it was used to refer to the master of a slave or the master of a disciple, thus 'rabbi' literally meant 'my master' and was a term of respect.

It was not a formal title, but was used to address a teacher and Jesus was recognised as such by his contemporaries, as many passages in the New Testament illustrate: “Jesus answered him, ‘Simon, I have something to tell you.’ ‘Tell me, rabbi,’ he said” (Luke 7:40). And, “A lawyer asked him a question to test him: ‘Rabbi, which Is the greatest commandment in the Torah?’” (Matt 22:35-36). Also, “A rich man asked him, ‘Rabbi, what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life?’" (Luke 16:16).

We should note the diversity of those who addressed Jesus as 'rabbi': a Torah expert, a rich man, and a Pharisee. Other scriptures illustrate that the Sadducees and ordinary people were part of a broad cross-section of people in Jesus's day who saw him as a rabbi.

Many scriptures illustrate that a broad cross-section of people in Jesus's day saw him as a rabbi.

Teaching Style

From the gospel accounts, Jesus clearly appears as a typical 1^st Century rabbi. He travelled around from place to place in an itinerant ministry, depending for food and shelter upon the hospitality of the people.

He did much of his teaching outdoors, but he also taught in homes and in village synagogues. He even taught in the Temple in Jerusalem, and was accompanied by a band of disciples who followed him around as he travelled.

Perhaps the most convincing proof that Jesus was a practising rabbi was his style of teaching. He used the same methods of instruction that characterised the rabbis of his day, such as the use of parables to convey teaching. The sort of parables that Jesus used were extremely common among the rabbis of 1^st Century Israel and over 4,000 of them have survived in rabbinic literature.

It is significant, perhaps, that among the thousands of parables to be found in rabbinic literature, not one is written in Aramaic; all are in Hebrew. Even when, a few hundred years later (500 to 600 AD), the main texts are written in Aramaic, the parable is always given in Hebrew.

Jesus’s Observation of the Law

There can be no doubt that Jesus observed the written law of Moses in its entirety. The New Testament clearly states that, having been born under the law, he committed no sin (Heb 4:15). Jesus was never charged with breaking any part of the written law, although his disciples were occasionally accused of disobeying aspects of the oral law.

Only one such accusation was brought against Jesus, and this was, of course, that he broke the Sabbath by healing the sick. In fact, Sabbath healings were permitted under official rabbinic ruling, so the only way we can understand this protest is to see it as the response of a narrow-minded ruler of a local synagogue.

There can be no doubt that Jesus observed the written law of Moses in its entirety.

Perhaps at this point we need to understand that in Jesus' day the Pharisees (with whom Jesus had more in common in belief and teaching than the Sadducees) believed in two 'versions' of the law.

First, they believed in the written law (the Torah, the five books of Moses), but they also believed in a second law (called the oral law), which they said had also been given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai and handed down through the generations by word of mouth. So perhaps a more pertinent question to ask is to what extent Jesus observed the practices of the oral law.

On Baptism

There may seem, at first glance, to be a shortage of hard evidence in the New Testament concerning Jesus' religious observance. But one must remember that the New Testament was written by Jews, for Jews. The normal Jewish religious practices were so well-known to the writers and to the readers that it would have been considered superfluous, perhaps ridiculous, to explain in detail how particular commandments were carried out.

That is why, for example, we have such a dearth of information in the scriptures about the practice of Jewish baptism. This was not conducted as we Christians do it today, but as the Jews still do it.

The earliest representation of Christian baptism in the catacombs in Rome shows John the Baptist standing fully clothed on the bank extending an arm to Jesus, who is undressed, coming up out of the water. John is helping him up the bank. So the one who was baptised or 'immersed' was not dipped under the water by some officiating minister, but rather walked down into the water alone, gave his testimony and dipped himself, just as it is still done today in every Jewish mikveh (ritual immersion bath).

The person officiating was there only to give his or her stamp of kashrut (official approval), to make certain that the hair of ladies, for instance, was completely immersed.

On Using God’s Name

Another example of Jesus's obedience to Scripture is his adherence to the rabbinic prohibition against using the unutterable name of God. The original understanding of the third commandment, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God” (Ex 20:7), was probably that one should be careful not to break one's vows when one has sworn in God's name. However, the rabbis eventually came to interpret this commandment to include using the Lord's name frivolously or lightly. To avoid the risk of employing the divine name irreverently, the rabbis ruled that one should not utter it at all.

Jesus seemingly adhered to the rabbinic prohibition against using the unutterable name of God.

The divine name, written as the yod hay vav hay (YHVH) and called the ‘tetragrammaton’, could be pronounced only in the Temple, in the daily priestly blessing, and in the confession of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. When reading or reciting Scripture, one was not to pronounce the unutterable name but rather had to substitute with Adonai (Lord). In time, this substitute name of Adonai itself came to have such a sacred aura that it was used only in Scripture reading and prayer.

When it was necessary to refer to God in everyday speech, one sought other substitutes or euphemisms such as ha-Makom (the Place); ha-Kadosh (the Holy); ha-Gavohah (the High); ha-Lashon (the Tongue); ha-Gevurah (the Power); Shamayim (Heaven); ha-Shem (the Name). Even the less distinctive Elohim (God), which could refer to the God of Israel or to false gods, was avoided in conversation.

So serious was the prohibition against pronouncing the tetragrammaton that the rabbis included among those that have no share in the world to come, “He who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.” The avoidance of the tetragrammaton began quite early, although there was no hesitation in pronouncing the sacred name in the Old Testament period. In the time of David, everyone went around saying YHVH (however they pronounced it), but already by the 3^rd Century BC, Adonai was being substituted for the yod hay vav hay (YHVH).

Jesus frequently used euphemisms for God, and his audiences would have been shocked if he had not. The most common word for God used by Jesus was 'Heaven'. This occurs, for example, in the phrase 'Kingdom of Heaven', the term Jesus used to describe his community of disciples, or his movement.

Jesus frequently used euphemisms for God, and his audiences would have been shocked if he had not.

To those in the Temple who questioned his authority, Jesus asked: “John's baptism - was it from heaven, or from men?” (Luke 20:4). In other words, was John's baptism of God or of men? In the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus had the prodigal say to his father, “I have sinned against heaven” (Luke 15:21). As for making oaths, Jesus commanded his disciples not to swear at all, not even using substitutes for God's name such as Shamayim (Heaven).

One other euphemism for God's name used by Jesus was ha-Gevurah (the Power). When interrogated by the High Priest, Jesus was asked for an admission that he was the Messiah. His answer was a classic example of rabbinic sophistication: “From now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” (Luke 22:69). This proclamation hints at two different Messianic passages, Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

To be continued in Part II, next week.

Rachel Tingle reviews 'The Mission of God: A Manifesto of Hope for Society' by Dr Joe Boot (Wilberforce Publications, 2016)

Since the 1960s Britain has seen a remarkable change in its culture and laws (as have many other countries in the West). Where once abortion and homosexual practice were outlawed, divorce was difficult, and sex outside marriage was frowned upon, we now kill the unborn child when convenient, create human embryos at will, and sex or marriage with whom and whenever is simply a matter of lifestyle choice. It is those Christians who protest that any of this is 'wrong' who may find themselves outside the law.

How did this extraordinary shift come about? Where is it likely to lead? And is there any hope for an alternative, more Godly, future? These are amongst the questions that British apologist, evangelist and theologian, Dr Joe Boot, sets out to discuss.

New Puritanism?

It has to be admitted at the outset that this book will not appeal to everyone. In the first place, at more than 600 pages, it is a long and complex work that requires a real commitment of time and intellectual energy.

Second, some readers (like myself) will disagree with its theological underpinnings, which are explicitly Calvinistic, including the view that Jesus' return will not be until after the establishment of his Kingdom on earth ('post-millennialism'). Indeed, this is Boot's cause for hope and his definition of the 'mission of God' - the establishment of "the kingdom and reign of God in the earth by his Spirit, through law and gospel" (p26).

This, he says, was the vision and motivating force of the Puritans of the English Commonwealth under Cromwell. For this reason, Joe Boot calls himself a 'new Puritan' and draws on the history of that period, as well as that of the similarly-motivated early settlers in America and Canada (where he now lives). He also draws on the extensive work of the 20^th Century American theologian, the late Rousas Rushdoony, who insisted that biblical law should be taken far more seriously than it is today, and that it has abiding validity in every sphere of life — the individual, family, church and wider society (referred to as 'theonomy').

Britain has seen a remarkable change in its culture and laws, but how did this extraordinary shift come about – where does it lead – and is there any hope for the future?

The Western Abandonment of God's Law

The first part of this book discusses God's law in detail, and attempts to explain why, in recent years, we have moved away from it. Boot gives a number of reasons, the primary one of which is the failure of the Church to integrate faith into every aspect of life and thought. He accuses the Church of 'dualism', separating life into the sacred and secular, personal and public - one part for ourselves and the other for God. Confused believers, he says, have sought retreat and escape from the world, rather than seeking to redeem it.

He blames this partly (and in my opinion, unfairly) on pre-millennialism: pessimistic believers expect no transformation of society before the Second Coming and so take no action to change it. Secondly, he blames it on 'spiritual amnesia'. In a fascinating discussion, drawing on the work of legal experts in Britain and America, Boot argues that the church has forgotten the degree to which the legal systems of the West were rooted in biblical law, the influence growing stronger after the Protestant Reformation. Legal principles were drawn not just from the Ten Commandments, but also the body of case law to be found in the Old Testament.

Thirdly, Boot argues, the Church has become 'antinomian' — by concentrating on grace it has overlooked the importance of biblical law. Boot argues that the work of salvation through Jesus' death on the cross did not replace the relevance for our lives of Old Testament case law, only the ceremonial law connected with Temple worship. We might sum up this relevant law as God's eternal moral law, referred to by Boot as God's 'justice'.

Boot draws on the work of American theologian Rousas Rushdoony, who insisted that biblical law has abiding validity in every sphere of life.

Even those evangelicals who do make an appeal to God's justice, he says, misunderstand it and tend to concentrate on the unbiblical concept of 'social' or 'distributive' justice - essentially a redistribution of goods by a coercive state to create equality. So some of them misuse the concept of the 'Kingdom of God' to argue for an essentially Marxist vision of society.

He argues, instead, that to the Puritans God's justice meant "receiving what one was due under God, not absolute equality where everyone gets the same as everyone else". Although he recognises the demands in the Old Testament to show love and care to one's needy neighbour, he argues these needs would be minimised if everyone were living a Godly life, and that, in any case, such needs should be met through the tithe, not coercive taxation and an over-extended welfare state.

Building a Theocracy?

Many will criticise these views on the grounds that they would involve establishing a theocracy, which might impose biblical law upon an unbelieving society. Boot insists that is a misunderstanding: that the adoption of biblical law must only be in response to a society which wants it, and that can only come about once there has been prior successful evangelisation.

In any case, Boot argues, the application of God's law must start first in the life of the individual, then the family (the building block of society), and only later in wider society.

Part 2 of this book looks at the implications of this in the life of the Church, the family and for education. He argues that the institutional Church should not be inward-looking but, rather, should be a "servant institution that equips, empowers and sends out every Christian in term of God's glorious kingdom purposes". Education in the whole of God's word, he says, is crucial and for that reason (again like Rushdoony who has been very influential in America in this respect) he is a strong proponent of Christian schools and home schooling.

Boot accuses the Church of 'dualism', separating life into the sacred and secular, personal and public - one part for ourselves and the other for God.

Is it Realistic?

All of this, of course, runs so counter to our prevailing culture that it will seem outrageous to many, including some Christians. Nevertheless, I learnt much from this book that made me think, and think hard, about the continued need to fight for God's moral law in all of society. Even though I doubt we will establish the Kingdom, we should continue to work as if we can.

You can buy 'The Mission of God' (682 pages, £36.99 HB; £15.99 PB) by clicking this link.

'NIV First-Century Study Bible', with notes by Kent Dobson (Zondervan, 1850 pages, £34.99, available from St Andrew's Bookshop for £31.49, also available on Amazon)

This is an amazing resource for any serious student of the Bible. It contains even more information and guidance than most already on the market. Its main claim is to be a first-century study Bible, in that it enables readers to explore Scripture in its original Jewish and early Christian context. To this end it is extremely successful.

As well as the usual charts, maps and introductions to the Biblical books, it contains several articles and word studies interspersed directly into the text. The articles are of two kinds: textual, which explain some background to the chapters nearby, and 'day in the life' articles on topics such as shepherds, family life, soldiers, farmers, and various religious groups.

The Word Studies (Hebrew and Greek) provide short but penetrating insights into key terms found in the text nearby. As usual there are explanatory footnotes, but more plentiful and informative than typically provided. At the end there are Endnotes, a Bibliography, Glossary and Concordance. It seems everything has been thought of!

This is an amazing resource for any Bible student, containing even more information and guidance than most already on the market.

Inevitably this is a large book, one for the study rather than carrying around (it weighs around 3lb 6oz, or just over 1.5kg). The pages are colourful and clearly laid out and, perhaps surprisingly, not that thin for a book of this size. They can easily be turned and there is no fear they will soon become torn or scruffy.

In a study Bible the level of scholarship is important. Here it is of a high quality and up-to-date. The notes have been provided by Kent Dobson, the teaching pastor at Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan, who has an impressive list of qualifications and credentials to back up his love of Biblical studies. His background includes time spent in Israel, where he still leads study tours, and opportunities taken to learn from both Jewish and Christian scholars.

It seems everything has been thought of – which inevitably makes for a large book, but one that is clearly laid out with pages that are not too thin.

Overall, this is a very worthwhile investment that will enhance general reading as well as more advanced studies. It is to be highly commended.